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.

I get what you mean. It's better to posit a physical cause rather than a nonphysical cause if something inexplicable is observed.

That's the whole point of my argument. First, scientists and physicalists always maintain something physical is going on whether physical laws are being violated or not. Then they define the nonphysical as that which violates physical laws. You see the problem with this don't you:

1. Physical laws violated -> Physical (your recommendatiom)
2. Physical laws vioated -> Nonphysical (definition of nonphysical according to physicalists/scientists)
3. Physical laws violated (observed)
4. Physical (1, 3 MP)
5. Nonphysical (2, 3 MP)
6. Physical & Nonphysical (contradiction!)

Acknowledging the fact that 1 is a better option still, you can't have it both ways, eat the cake and have it too, right? What's the difference between physical and nonphysical in terms of physical laws if both can violate physical laws?

It's a logical statement, not a prediction of outcomes. — Kenosha Kid

Unfortunately or not, this is false.

The argument from physics clearly states that if the mind were nonphysical then physical laws would be violated.

There's nothing here. — Banno

:lol: You need to see a shrink!

You seem to be simply assuming that thoughts are not in any way examples of physical work. But if they are correlated with neural activity then they are examples of energy exchange, of physical work.

Anyway your argument seemed to be that if thoughts are physical activity when I think a thought I should weigh more. I presented the examples of electricity flow and heating of objects to show that I think this reasoning is fallacious. — Janus

But no, the schema is not problematic. To define physical by being detectable seems like a decent definition even in vacuum. If you want to propose a “mind substance” like a thought, being more than just a physical structure, then that’s a testable hypothesis. — khaled

To the above to esteemed forum members.

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

I'm a bit confused here. What's the relationship between the nonphysical and physical laws? 4 possibilities arise:

1. If x is nonphysical then x violates physical laws

2. If x violates physical laws then x is nonphysical

3. If x doesn't violate physical laws then x is physical [from 1]

4. If x is physical then x doesn't violate physical laws [from 2]

The argument from physics (above) seems to be about relationship 1 and 3 between the nonphysical and physical laws.

Dark Energy & Conservation Laws

If the trio are ultimately proved right, it would not mean physicists having to throw their long-established conservation principles completely out of the window — From The Article Above

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. Then we get the following statement,

5. If x violates physical laws then either x is physical or x is nonphysical.

Then,

6. If x is nonphysical then either x is physical or x is nonphysical [1, 5 HS]

7. x is nonphysical [assume for conditional proof]

8. x is physical or x is nonphysical [6, 7 MP]

9. x doesn't violate physical laws or x violates physical laws [1, 4, 7 CD]

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

In other words, according to physicalists who make the argument from physics, playing by their rules, their hypothesis about the nonphysical as compatible with both violation and nonviolation of physical laws (10 above) is utterly unscientific as it can't be falsified.

Either that or accept everything is nonphysical.

Anselm isn't using the mathematician's notion of "greater than" when he uses the phrase. You're equivocating.

I can, given some leeway, easily mathematize that in terms of,

1. The length of time a person spends listening to either Jane's or Jim's piano pieces.

or

2. How large the audience is each of their performances

or

3. How many times their performances have been viewed on youtube
.
.
.

so on and so forth

None of these are a measure of a person's piano-playing ability. — Michael

I would be equivocating iff I use two different meanings of the word "greater". I'm not. The word "greater" is inherently quantitative. It even has its own mathematical symbol ">". All I did was take Anselm's "greater" and rendered it in mathematical terms. Since Anselm's God is "that than which nothing greater [...]", mathematically, that's infinity. So, if Anselm believes God exists, his claim boils down to one about the existence of an actual infinity which is not as cut-and-dried as we/I would have hoped.

As an analogy regarding the quantitative/mathematical nature of the word "greater", I'd like to mention an issue that's very sensitive for people who are obese - weight. If I say Tom's weight is greater than Eric's what I actually mean is Tom's weight, say 90 kg, > Eric's weight, 70 kg. I can't make it clearer than that I'm afraid.

From where I'm sitting, it isn't necessary to invoke mathematics — EricH

See my reply to Michael above!

Thanks for the excerpt from the Wiki page about the ontological argument. I'm currently focused on my own refutation though. My argument differs from the rest because Anselm's argument is wholly predicated on the meaning of "greater" in "that than which nothing greater [...]"


To those interested

To tell you the truth though, this entire discussion is ultimately about the existence of actual infinities!

Mind posting them? — Olivier5

The physical world is quantized, ideal mathematical concepts are imaginary exclusions of quantization, equivalent to a unicorn or a leprechaun for pure thought. They are not a nonphysical substance, but rather fictions that prove extremely functional because they optimize precision. — Enrique

To both of the above two esteemed forum members:

Physicalism: Everything is matter & energy

Nonphysicalism: Physicalism is false (some things are not just matter and energy)

You can't see the fool ishness of this? If physicalism is true, there is nothing that is nonphysical — Banno

I'm not saying the nonphysical exists. My bad, poor choice words - "connect". What I really mean to say is how something physical (mind) can even conceive of the the nonphysical. The mind is even confused about what it is (physical/nonphysical) - that's the very essence of the physicalism/nonphysicalism debate.

Let me spell it out for you:

Physicalism is true. Check.

1. A physical thing (mind) can conceive of the nonphysical (what it is not). Marvel of marvels!

2. A physical thing (mind) is unsure about whether it's physical or nonphysical. Will wonders never cease!

Another basic mistake, of the sort that make up most of your posts. — Banno

Hey! :sad:

Hahaha! How'd you guess :joke:

Yes of course TMF, towing the official lines is good as a starting point, but we're continental/post modernist's :yikes:

Maybe that's yet another Kantian thing that's beyond pure reason! Or perhaps we should throw SK and Existentialism in there too! — 3017amen

I had to start somewhere! Too, the paradox that I speak of encompasses both physicalism & nonphysicalism. If the former is true then we have, I just discovered, a physical object (mind) uncertain of its own physicality and if the latter is true, a nonphysical object (mind) is in two minds about its nonphysicality. Isn't that odd? That's the paradox! How can one kind of thing conflate itself with another kind of thing? Unless...as you suggested, it's both (physical & nonphysical). Hmmm. :chin: That's a contradiction iff I speak of the mind as a whole but it could be part physical, part nonphysical. Hence explaining the confusion! Mind weighing in on this? Thanks!

Pain useful in evolutionary terms, but yours crosses into teleology. — tim wood

So? You say it as if that's wrong.

But you again refer to death. Please make clear what it is that you're referring to. What do you know about death? — tim wood

Those are waypoints we've already crossed. I'm disinclined to return to ground already covered. Sorry.

Further, "creatures" is your word, not mine. If you wish to restrict to human beings, I'm agreeable. Else on your terminology we're also considering all other animals. And maybe some other living things. — tim wood

I'm employing conventional terms, part of the vernacular. I don't understand your objections. I haven't resorted to coining new words in which case I'd be obliged to clarify them.

TMF! Nice post.

Why can't both be true? — 3017amen

It's not my position but I'm merely toeing the official lines as it were. By the way, we're talking about the mind only and it can't be both physical and nonphysical, right? That would be a contradiction!

Distinction between death and dying. Further, I am not persuaded that creatures of my acquaintance, near or far, fear either death or dying. Maybe pain, but likely operting on an entire whole other set of priorities. — tim wood

Don't talk about pain. Pain is the true prophet, not sleep like @180 Proof thinks, of death! Pain exists to keep death at bay - a stitch in time saves nine kinda deal.

Also, not to denigrate the suffering of those who suicide, I feel the idea of, "there are some things (pain/suffering) worse things than death" is more nuanced than appears at first glance. We might need to make the fine distinction between "no fear (of death)" and "lesser (fear of death)". The former is absolute (rare/nonexistent) and the latter is relative (quite common/suicide).

I deny it. Make your case. — tim wood

You don't fear death? Why? Perhaps you mean there's somebody you know who doesn't fear death. Again, why?

Every living creature fears death. Discussing this is flogging a dead horse!

What we should be really doing is try and discover what death fears. That sounds like a great idea, right?

I know what death fears!

Math, geometric progression or the number 2 as relates to cell division.

Once there was 1 cell. Death said, "no problem. just one small accident and life's done for." Then the 1 cell divides and now there are 2 cells. Death (slightly dismayed), "WTF? There are two of them! No problemo! I can handle 2". A few moments later, each of the two cells divide and now 4 cells. Death (distressed), "4! Let me see...I'll take care of that one first, then that one..." After some time, each of the 4 cells divide and now 8 cells. Death, "What's going on here? I thought there were only 4." Before Death can come up with a plan to off the 8 cells, 8 becomes 16, 16 becomes 32, so and so forth until there are billions and billions, trillions, quintillions, sextillions of cells, dividing non-stop. Death, :fear: :fear: :fear:

It's elementary my dear Watson. Death fears geometric progressions. — Sherlock Holmes

What about cancer, Sherlock? — Dr. Watson

Double-edged sword, Watson! Double-edged sword! — Sherlock Holmes

Imagine a Mr. S who's, for some reason, always blindfolded. On Monday, he's taken to a room and his blindfolds are removed. He looks around the room, no clock, no calender, the room is sparsely furnished. He makes a mental note - he has a photographic memory - of all the objects, their color, shape, size, position, and so on.

Mr. S is blindfolded again, taken out of the room and kept in this state until Wednesday. On Wednesday, Mr. S is taken back to the room and his blindfolds are removed. He sweeps the room with his eyes and comes to the realization that nothing has changed about the room - every object is exactly how and where it was on Monday.

Insofar as Mr. S and this room is concerned, Mr. S can't distinguish it's still Monday (no time has passed/time is an illusion) and no, it's Wednesday (time has passed/time is real). If Mr. S is unable to tell the difference between real time and illusory time, the distinction is without a difference i.e. real time = illusory time. Case closed? :chin:

I often wonder if what you mean is the invisible — Jack Cummins

Air has weight but air is invisible! So, no I don't mean invisible. Glass, the plain kind, too is invisible but definitely not nonphysical.

greater — Michael

is quantitative. If you don't believe me, in math "greater"' is symbolized as ">". Nothing more need be said.

Jane is a greater piano player than Jim. Jim is a greater friend than Sam. — Michael

I can, given some leeway, easily mathematize that in terms of,

1. The length of time a person spends listening to either Jane's or Jim's piano pieces.

or

2. How large the audience is each of their performances

or

3. How many times their performances have been viewed on youtube
.
.
.

so on and so forth

What exactly do you mean by "physical" and "non-physical"?

As already pointed out by others, these terms mean very little... — Olivier5

I'm employing the standard definitions as they appear in the relevqnt wikipedia pages ( :sweat: ).

Vexing problems in dualist ontology* — khaled

Physicalism is literally hogging all the space - leaving no room for nonphysicalism. The instant a thing is perceived, it's automatically physical. You do see the problem with such a schema don't you. Existence is defined in terms of that which is perceivable and that which is perceivable is physical. How the hell can we claim anything nonphysical exists?

Existence takes precedence over physical/nonphysical i.e. first existence needs to be established and only then can we go about determining the physical/nonphysical nature of that which is claimed to exist. Unfortunately or not, to exist means to be perceived and to be perceived is to be physical. Ergo, nonphysical implies imperceivable and imperceivable means nonexistent! To cut to the chase, by virtue of how existence & physical are defined (both perceivable), nonphysical = nonexistence.

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

That's one of the vexing problems in ontology. There's no difference at all between perceivable (sensorily and/or instrumentally) and physical.

Excerpt from recent thesis on Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion:

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to
satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek
explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the
consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.

https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1282&context=philosophy_theses — Wayfarer

I skimmed through your post. Sorry, I was in a hurry and what caught my eye was the word "metaphysics" and suddenly a light bulb goes off in my head - pragmatism. What difference does the answer to "Is morality - objective, subjective, or relative?" make in our moral conduct? Is the OP claiming that if morality's subjective, fae'll go on a killing spree or if morality's relative, fae'll marry an 8 year old girl? Now that I think of it, the OP is claiming that! :chin:

Question: does a length of copper cable increase in weight when you pass electrical
current through it? Or does a piece of steel increase in weight when you heat it up? — Janus

In both cases, physical work is done. You can't do any work with thoughts, at least I haven't heard of such an event having occurred. Something smells fishy though. Mind if you take a look at what I'm saying.

Yeah good luck with that. Invite me to the award ceremony. — Wayfarer

Paraphrasing Dan Barker (Atheist, Musician), "if someone had proved God exists, fae should've won a Nobel Prize."

I don't think that Anselm was defining God as being "larger than any real or natural number." That would be a category error.

When Anselm talks about "a being than which no greater can be conceived" by "greater" he means something like "better" or "more awesome." — Michael

Mathematical infinity is the numerical representation of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." What I've attempted to do is mathematize Anselm's conception of God. It's basically translating Anselm's God into a number, that's all. For instance, I say God is green, then mathematically God is a wavelength of 555 nm. Mathematizing Anselm's god is not just a trick-shot, it's germane to the ontological argument as the word "greater" in "...that than which nothing greater can be conceived" is inherently quantitative. It appears people failed to connect the dots, missed what was right under their noses.

If mind-matter are two aspects of the same thing, then there is no paradox. — RussellA

Yes you're right. Mind-matter are two aspects of the universe but my concerns are specific to mind - is it physical (matter/energy) or is it nonphysical?

So, how does empirical verifiability work? — Wayfarer

Suppose, I claim, God exists! Empirical verification of my claim would include sensory & instrumental data that match the claim.

By finding ‘what fits’. — Wayfarer

Yes, we look for a match between a mathematics-based hypothesis and empirical data. All this reminds me of adventure movies where a medallion is broken into two halves and at some point the two halves are brought together to form the whole and something magical happens. In the case of science, one piece of the medallion is nonphysical (mathematical models) and the other piece is physical (empirical observation). That's what I'm trying to get across!

No :sweat: ... read Popper or Peirce, my friend. No scientific entity is 'true by definition'. — 180 Proof

Look, I ain't the brightest bulb on the chandelier but I know one thing for a fact - physics is slowly metamorphosing into a full-fledged branch of mathematics. In math, some things are true by definition!

Hence the correlation with 'positivism' - 'a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.' Corresponds with the majority of posters on this forum. — Wayfarer

I thought logical positivism was more about empirical verifiability than the hypotheses/theories themselves. The former - empirical verifiability - is what physicalism is about but the latter - hypotheses/theories - are be abstract mathematical objects, distinctly nonphysical any way you look at it.

The mind, which lies at the heart of the physicalism-nonphysicalism controversy, seems to be playing both sides in a manner of speaking. You do know that a lot of physical entities like many particles were, a long time before they were empirically verified, predicted by the mathematics of hypotheses/theories in physics. The mind seems to be telling us "it's all up here" (finger to temple) and at other times, it ignores this plain and simple truth that every scientist knows by heart and simply refuses to budge an inch on its physicalist beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance? Likely, I bet!

Confusion now hath made his masterpiece. — William Shakespeare

...so the argument against science is that Counterpunch doesn't understand it. — Banno

Israeli Intelligence Failure Leads To Creation Of The Devil's Advocate

The Tenth Man is a devil’s advocate. If there are 10 people in a room and nine agree, the role of the tenth is to disagree and point out flaws in whatever decision the group has reached.

Maybe it makes sense in ways I don't understand — counterpunch

:rofl: This maybe the key to unlocking some doors to...the twilight zone! Press on, o philosopher! Lead the way!

There might be a hair to split between what is conceived versus what is realized or actual. But, I would approach it as God must be slightly less than infinity and greater than everything else. However uncountable infinity would move the scale in a way that frustrates that conjecture. — Cheshire

If God is less than anything he can't be "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Infinity is the numerical representation of that than which nothing greater can be conceived (God). Ergo, since actual infinities don't exist, God too can't exist.

Thank you for your comment but, read my reply to Cheshire above. Cantor believed that God = infinity and actual infinities exist - he was right about the first but wrong about the second. Together these two (one true, the other false) constitute the premises of my argument that God can't exist!

Yeah, it fails but, first and foremost, because it is, at most, merely valid and not sound, only the idea of God (essence) is 'demonstrated' but not the existence of the idea's referent as "the proof" also sets out to do. And, as an 'a priori argument', the OA (Proslogion) is only 'true by definition', thus vacuous with respect to a posteriori facts of the matter. So again, my friend, I think your "potential infinity vs actual infinity" argument misses the forest for the trees (& what ↪fishfry said :smirk: ). — 180 Proof

Yes, the a priori - a posteriori distinction is important but do you know that theoretical physics (a priori) decides what kind of experiments (a posteriori) should be conducted. Also, many particles were first predicted by a priori physics theories and then, intriguingly, confirmed through experimentation!

Do you really have to post YouTube videos MF? Do you think we’re all pre-schoolers? :brow: — Wayfarer

Sorry, I find audiovisuals pack more punch than plain words on a computer screen.

We are not mindless zombies, nor are we floating ghosts. We are humans. — Kasperanza

:up: We could be both! Neither?! :chin:

The modern mind-body problem arose out of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, as a direct result of the concept of objective physical reality that drove that revolution. — Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, Pp 35-36

:up: The thing about science, from the little that I know of it, is that it's basically about finding the right mathematical model that fits/explains the observational data. Look how observations of gravity match the mathematical construct known as Minkowski space-time. Maths features in the top 10 list of abstract entities which are, from what I hear, uncontroversially nonphysical.

Only formulations such as yours, Fool, introduce the apparent paradox. For instance (once again), is digesting non-physical? breathing non-physical? walking non-physical? If not, then on what grounds do you 'assume' minding (e.g. intending, choosing, imagining, emoting, experiencing, remembering-recalling, etc) is non-physical? — 180 Proof

You've missed the point. I don't claim that anything is nonphysical. I'm just struck by the irony of the unequivocal fact that, if physicalism is true, something physical (the mind) is trying to connect as it were with that which it is not, the nonphysical. See Wonder Woman meeting a man for the first time:



timestamp@2:46

I'm getting the same feeling as Wonder Woman!

The same applies if nonphysicalism were true. A nonphysical thing (the mind) seems to be the master key to understanding the physical world!

It’s not - it’s as old as Descartes’ publication of Method - around 1633 from memory. The medieval would never have conceived the question in those terms — Wayfarer

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Innatism, see Plato's Meno, just another way of saying the mind is nonphysical? Implicit, I agree, but that was probably left as an exercise for future philosophers like all good teachers do.

Del

porn — Andrew4Handel

Father I have sinned. I like porn (a lot).

You might find this interesting. :point: Does Nature Have Value?

An excerpt:

Let's begin small and a few billion years ago, shall we? In the primordial oceans when life first took hold on earth, the flagellum corkscrews its way through the water, taking this single motile bacterium to places so to speak. Why? I bet only so that it can get to fresh sources of food and away from dangers. Then it feeds, hopefully in peace. It feeds, feeds, and feeds. Why? So that it becomes "mature" enough to divide/multiply (I can never seem to tell the difference). — TheMadFool

The purpose of an individual's life is to, well, FUCK which is just another way of saying life's purpose is to keep the flame of life burning (for as long as possible). The "extremely" high website traffic in re porn sites is conclusive evidence that all of us, deep down in our hearts, know the answer to the existential question, "why am/are I/we here?" To fuck!!!

:chin:

From a previous discussion it seems to be that the only relevant evidence has to be a scientific study (peer reviewed?) (that study doesn't even need to be replicated or involve many participants).

This appears to me to be a patently false assertion not backed up by logic either.

Especially in the era of the internet where most internet users have access to an enormous pile of data. For example as in a my previous thread when I cited Reddit.

I think scientists and social scientists et al could benefit from going on major platforms like these to see what is happening in the real world outside of ideology and academic cloisters.

Anecdotes are not generalisable but can be qualitatively powerful. Trends on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter etc are a source of data most people can access. — Andrew4Handel

Where's the time? What are the pay-offs? As long as reputed journals are willing to publish your results and the accompanying hypothesis or whatever, you've made it big insofar as a scientist's purpose is at stake.

Nevertheless, the internet is a goldmine of information but the catch/drawback is extremely low signal-to-noise ratio i.e. getting one's hands on a valuable piece of data would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Your options: a painful prick or nothing at all! Not much of choice there.

Child In Addendum: It's never true in a superposition. If a thing is in all states it can't be p v ~p

Thanks for all the commentary, I intend to make sure I cover it all in the coming days. — Cheshire

:ok: I gave it my best shot. I know nothing about superposition except perhaps that it's a contradiction - the cat is both dead and alive!

Good luck!

The wheel is physical yes, but the “spin” of the wheel is a process that the physical object undergoes. The process itself is not physical. Similarly, the brain is physical, yet a thought it not. — avalon

If I drop a tiny piece of paper on the spinning wheel, will the paper not fly off at a tangent? Yes, it will. What causes the paper to fly off like that? Energy! Ergo, the spin of the wheel is energy.

I would be willing to suppose that it is the same outside of mathematics; that the termination of Why? is most likely an unspoken assumption like reality can't exist in contradiction or the state of affairs was possible long enough to occur and did. — Cheshire

Since you seem to be interested for some reason...hopefully, a good one...I'll let you know what I think of this problem with justification - it is about justification vis-à-vis Agrippa's trilemma [1. Infinite regress (topic of discussion), 2. Circularity and 3. Axiomatization (the best option)].

The issue is that we need to get our hands on some proposition (atomic/compound) that's true, must be true, sans any justification whatsoever in order that the infinite regress is terminated.

My initial gut feelings were, why not assume a contradiction as our axiom. Ex falso quodlibet, everything follows - a contradiction as the one and only axiom would be like a theory of everything.

However, the problem is contradictions are false and so to have one as an axiom would be basing all knowledge on a lie - a bad idea. Plus, what's the point of axiomatic system in which both a proposition and its negation are true. How would you, for example, plan a vacation in Paris is Paris is in France and Paris is not in France? Confusion, big time!

Your question was opportune insofar as I'm concerned since what I said in my first post is germane to the matter at hand. Everything begins with doubt - given a proposition p, we begin as p v ~p. From p v ~p, we then try and justify either that p or ~p (certainty) and that's precisely the point where/how infinte regress gains a foothold and from thereon gums up the works as ut were.

Notice something interesting though! p v ~p is a tautology i.e. it's always true and, more importantly, it doesn't need an argument that justifies it! What does this mean? Well, if anything else, a tautology p v ~p can be, by virtue of it being true sans proof, can serve as a foundational axiom - no infinite regress, no circularity, plus even if it's just an axiom, it's nevertheless true (it's a tautology).

Thus, a way out of Agrippa's trilemma is to use a tautology (p v ~p) as the first port of call in our journey into epistemology. This squares with what I said earlier. We argue by explicitly declaring our ignorance like so: Begin with p v ~p. Then proceed as follows: IF p then q and IF ~p then r. We haven't committed to either p or ~p. We've simply assumed p in one instance and ~p in another and investigated (skepticism) what follows from these assumptions (axioms).

Children never lie

Child: p v ~p (always true, tautology)
Adult: p (Aagrippa's trilemma)
Child: Why?

Child: p v ~p (always true, tautology)
Adult: ~p (Agrippa's trilemma)
Child: Why?

Let's get right down to business.

Physicalism claims everything is matter and/or energy.

Matter is anything that has mass and volume.

Energy is the capacity to do work.

Here's me, observing a wheel spinning.

The wheel neither gains mass nor increases in volume. Ergo, the spinning wheel isn't matter!

Conclusion: The phenomena of a wheel spinning is neither matter nor energy.

In other words, the spin of a wheel is nonphysical.
----------

1. The brain is made up of matter.
2. The mind is the name we give the core function of the brain.
3. A thought is an atomized unit of "mind". — avalon

You can do work with the spinning wheel i.e. the spinning (of the wheel) is energy - it's physical (matter & energy).

A thought on the other hand can't hasn't been observed doing any work i.e. thoughts aren't energy. Thoughts aren't matter too because the brain doesn't increase either in mass or in volume when thinking.

Ergo, thoughts are nonphysical.

You might find psychokinesis relevant. Thoughts doing work! Woo-woo! Pseudoscience!