Ok, I will search for the video.

It is unnecessary for science to explain everything. Either:

1. the immaterial world does not interact with the material world
2. the immaterial world does interact with the material world as a statistically predictable mediator of material causes;
3. the immaterial world does interact with the material world, but not as a statistically precitable mediator of material causes. — Kenosha Kid

4. There is an immaterial abstract part of the world that actually governs the material world, by laws of physics or chemistry, biology (we don't know to what extent measurable) and maybe intelligence (my intuition says that it isn't going to be measurable, especially if free will exists, but we could definitely have a science of free will).
So the world doesn't have to limit itself and physics doesn't exclude chemistry, nor biology the free will. That's how it really works.

None that I've heard, but go for it! — Kenosha Kid

Gravity (not material) governs matter. Hunger (non-material) makes your physical body to move in order to eat food (purpose - abstract). I could go on for hours.

More or less: Newton didn't exorcise the ghost, he exorcised the machine. ... he (Newton) had a ghost all the way down, wasn't just the mind, but all the matter was ghostly. You have the link of the full video below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67XvFZj8Kjw&t=494s

PS: I hope I'll soon find the video where he actually says that there's no evidence for matter.

He actually says there's no such thing as matter. Literally.

A good argument to me is the absence of any posited immaterial realm that makes any difference. — Kenosha Kid

- 0 evidence for it, tons against.

The success of science depends on the material world behaving in a predictable, deterministic or probabilistic way — Kenosha Kid

- this is why it is so unscientific to say science can explain everything.
Science looks at the brain and say there's matter acting as an effect of a sort of an informational entity or something that science cannot grasp yet. Materialism look at the brain and say there's matter acting and nothing else exists simply because science can't explain it. That's the fundamental error of materialism. Science doesn't have to be 100% successful. I am not saying it can't be 100% successful, but that will be the case only when it will explain everything abstract or deny the abstract irrefutably.

way such that any effect in the material world can be understood to have a material cause — Kenosha Kid

- absolutely not! Science's role is that to discover the things how they are, not how we want them to be in order to confirm our theories. Matter acts under the rule of laws which are immaterial. Even if you don't believe in free will, you should admit atoms in your brain act in certain ways not because an immaterial law or laws of biology demand so, oftenly being in contradiction with physical or chemical laws for example.

Pigg's field can only get a grasp of material world, not the world as a whole, let alone proving that the world is just material.

As Noam Chomsky suggests, what if those fields and molecules have a sort of counsciousness? After all, a combination of elements create consciousness, therefore the consciousness properties are there, at the base of everything. I truly believe materilists are very afraid of this.

You are seeking refuge for anti-materialism not in the materialist interpretation of explained things, but in the lack of materialist explanation for as-yet-unexplained things — Kenosha Kid

Seeking refuge from something silly that denies all my obvious perceptions, feelings ang pure logic? This is the old excuse of materialists when they have no arguments, they accuse others of being too weak or stupid for accepting the reality. Again, very unscientific.

It's kind of ironic, really, since it recognises materialism as the explainer. — Kenosha Kid

Could you be more specific about this statement? Science is science, it does not recognize philosophical notion as its basis. It's the same as saying religion is at the base of science, and you wouldn't be far from the truth if you said that.

You will find that with anything. — Kenosha Kid

- yes, but when you suggest that thoughts are material and actually everything is matter, you should come up with some really good arguments. All I have heard so far was that matter clearly exists, but the point wasn't that, the point was to hear that matter is all that exists.

Yes it will, if the core of these things is found to be a material system (which it almost certainly will be). — Kenosha Kid

- so in your opinion, perception, or even the laws of nature are all fundamentally material. I just can't wait for those irrefutable proofs. But again, not to show me that thought produces a material effect, like an electric impulse, but that thought itself is material. Not to mention perception which is totally subjective an abstract. Again, I just can't wait to see these proofs.

Because the universe behaves as if it were so, and because, until it behaves otherwise, the assumption of additional degrees of freedom in the universe is unjustified, unfalsifiable, arbitrary, and meaningless. — Kenosha Kid

- well, there aren't many elements that have purpose in this universe, but the reality shows that some of them have. I don't see how a bunch of atoms with 0 purpose have purpose. 0+0+0+........+0 = 0. This goes fairly well with the rest as well (free will, thoughts, maybe even soul).

This is not a proof that only matter exists, but rather a reason why the assumption is valid. The popularity of materialism does not depend on its being proven. — Kenosha Kid

- for a current that claims itself to be the same with science, this is very unscientific.

he observation that dualist philosophy is useless and under-defined, — Kenosha Kid

- I don't know much about dualism and I do not think that if dualism is wrong. therefore materialism has to be right.

Everything that has been usefully and meaningfully explained has been explained materialistically. — Kenosha Kid

- Science, religion, or magic explain everything as well, I don't see the difference. Materialism is not science, it is just a belief that science is 100% materialist and that science can prove anything. Unfortunately for materialism, it hasn't been capable to prove that. Moreover, it is against the principle of science to argue everything is demonstrable through science.

dualism depends always on ignorance. — Kenosha Kid

- why are you keep bringing up dualism in this debate? If dualism says black magic is true and not everything is material, it doesn't mean it is 100% false just because it said black magic exists. Same goes for materialism, I truly believe it has lots of truth in it, the problem is that it hasn't proven its own base statements and it is not capable to do so, but instead insists on the fact they're right.

If and when consciousness is fully understood materialistically, the effect on dualism will be to either insist on some new, mystical, ill-defined component that isn't evident, or to just stop mentioning consciousness when insisting that not everything is material and therefore materialism fails. — Kenosha Kid

- science will only highlight the material translation of thoughts, perceptions, experiences, pain, happiness, etc. but it will never go at the core of these things, because the perception itself, the thought itself or even the notion of ''feeling good'' itself aren't material and it's silly to believe that (materialism thinks that, not science). Even if science will go into the deep abstract, materialism will be only scientifically denied, because science will show that there are some non-material aspects in this Universe.

I'd like to hear a genuinely compelling argument for dualism. — Kenosha Kid

I'd like to hear a genuine argument that only what we can see and physically measure exists, or that everything non-material must be an illusion, and that illusion is also material.

You do not have thoughts, feelings, perceptions, intelligence or imagination? Are they material? Do you believe in laws of nature? Are they material?

Monism, the belief that there is only one metaphysical reality, is widely held by contemporary philosophers. This was not always the case. Up until the enlightenment, dualism, the idea that there are two metaphysical domains, the natural and the supernatural, held sway. Science (aka methodological naturalism) as a form of monism, has been instrumental in debunking the supernatural. Philosophical naturalism, another form of monism, has also provided powerful arguments against dualism.

I'm not sure if a strict philosophical naturalism is popular with the American public. Most American are religious to the extent that they believe in a supernatural "higher power." This would seem to put them in the dualist camp although their dualism seems very restricted -- ie. yes to god and angels but no to fairies, pixes, unicorns or magic. — elphidium55

You confirm my belief: materialists are just atheists whose basic purpose is not science itself, but using science for disproving God. Why did you say dualism is about supernatural? I don't believe perception is supernatural, but I do believe the core of it is abstract and non-material.

Probably because its adherents have figured out that insisting on imagined things is not a compelling argument for believing in them. When faced with one philosophy that explains nothing and concerns nothing apparently real, and another whose explanatory power is good enough to make it accurately predictive in the real world, spotting the fake isn't hard. — Kenosha Kid

Materialism did not invent, but appropriated all the elements of science that do not actually belong to it and denies absolutely everything that science cannot prove. Materialism is not science, it is a philosophical current that self-identifies with science and claims that science can prove absolutely everything (a completely unscientific statement) and that everything that cannot be proved does not exist. And that leads to gross aberrations.

To get a more meaningful answer, I think we need a more meaningful question. In pursuit of this, can you explain why it's obvious to you that there's more to us than a bunch of atoms? — InPitzotl

I have intelligence, thoughts, purposes, moral values, intentions, perception, feelings, and maybe a soul. In the worst case, I have an illusion that I possess all of these. All of them are immaterial.

This seems to imply your picture of materialism rejects the abstract... is that the case and, if so, could you explain your impression of materialism? — InPitzotl

Materialism the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. There's nothing abstract in this. Actually, there's nothing abstract in the name of materialism and in my view is just a philosophical current that claims to identify itself with pure science, but in reality is just a poor excuse to disprove God.

I didn't say we know everything

I am not really into those speculations but even a quantum-amoeba could have a better understanding of it's normal environment than we do. — Heiko

Me neither, but I am searching for arguments for that. I will meditate on this topic and I will write to you if I draw some conclusions. I hope to find some here.

Exactly, there are things and notions like finite space or infinite, the beginning with no cause or no beginning at all that gives us plenty of trouble. But are these truly understandable things, or no matter how evolved our brain gets we'll never grasp the true essence or these very abstract things?

Will those future humans invent new science fields that we, ''early humans'', wouldn't be able to comprehend even by being taught?
To be more specific, I will use the Caeser example again: if you traveled back in time and met Caesar your smartphone and explained to him that this tool is based on electricity, satellites, and waves, he wouldn't understand. But if you explained to him that a smartphone is a tool that helps people to communicate from long distances, he would definitely understand. Moreover, he would be capable to understand the functions of the electricity, satellites, etc, if explained properly.
Same with future humans?
Or rather they will show us a ''bablucof'' and explain to us its purpose and we wouldn't be able to understand that either?

The lack of understanding in QM comes from the paradoxes of it and from the lack of willingness to admit that the way we're dealing with science from the observer perspective is subjective, therefore wrong. This is why QM has so many paradoxes.
But that's not to say we cannot comprehend QM - we realize there are paradoxes, we know QM is a matter of physics and atoms and so on. We can comprehend it, even if we are still stuck.
But my question would be: is QM incomprehensible for our brains? If it is, is it comprehensible for other more developed brains?

The tale makes sense, yes. This is just like the color-blind without any apparature. He does not really get the difference between colors. — Heiko

Yes, I have thought about it many times. For example if humans were blind, would we ever think of inventing seeing? My answer to that is actually yes, because seeing means getting instant information from long distances. I am not saying we would invent eyes, but some kind of technology to extract information, yes.
Regarding the color example, yes, it's a good one. How could you imagine a color you've never seen? It would always be a combination of other familiar colors. But explaining to someone who, let's say sees only 2 colors, that there are other kinds of colors, he'd understand that yellow is a color like white, only a bit different.
So my curiosity is that if there is something so strange and incomprehensible to us like a book for a dog. A dog can see the book, can realize is an object, but it cannot comprehend the fact that a book provide humans with information. And it is not a matter of language barrier and the impossibility to explain that to a dog from a language perspective, it is a matter of brain's capacity.

Would it? I see it this way: Imagine an intelligence being present in two parallel universes at the same time. We would never really get why it tried to evade invisible obstacles. — Heiko

But being present in two universes at the same time is something that makes sense to us, we would understand this state, while a dog cannot understand us playing a videogame.

So your whole question breaks down to a speculation if there could be something that is per definition irrelevant to us as it has no reality for us perceived by some fictional super-brains. — Heiko

It is a speculation, indeed. A speculation that reality is more than our current brain can comprehend and that more neurons would comprehend more of the reality. But then again, I personally believe that everything that exists and it is comprehensible to an infinite-developed mind it is also comprehensible for our current mind.

What if our brains develop to be interlinked with one another through some as yet to be evolved mechanism? For such a social mind, existing socio-politico modalities might appear completely meaningless. The management of such a group mind likewise might not bear any resemblance to what we now recognize as politics. — Pantagruel

Why I do not agree:
I believe that humans or any other super-evolved creature follow the purpose of surviving and fulfill their desires and for this they need resources. I believe there are only three possible extremes in every universe possible:

A. A political entity (could be made of people or A.I.) controlling the law and institutions + the entire process of distribution of resources among its citizens.
B. A political entity (could be made of people or A.I.) controlling the law and institutions + playing an arbitrary role in an economic competition by making sure laws are respected.
C. 0 politics, 0 laws + every human being for himself.

A + B + C + everything in-between them = 100% of all possible ways of managing resources in a group of people competing for them in 100% possible universes.

If my assumption is wrong, than the answer to my initial question is YES. But I would need arguments.

Debating imagination vs desire is irrelevant to the topic, and this is the last time I bring arguments. But first things first.

A plastic bag. Which of the humans' desires led to that being invented. — Sir2u

-WRONG EXAMPLE - the concept of bag is old as human and it comes from the desire to carry things efficiently. DESIRE of carrying efficiently - IMAGINE a tool that would be good for it - the TOOL.

Tell us what part of our instinct=desire made it possible to discover electricity. — Sir2u

- Having light all the time? There is ABSOLUTELY no function of electricity that does not serve directly or indirectly to an old desire and you wouldn't be able to name at least one.

I am sure that he will imagine something that will awaken new desires in human. By the way, do you think that vanity is an instinct? — Sir2u

- So far there's nothing new under the sun in terms of new desires. Or you think we just wait for ending the first set of desires and then get to the next one? Vanity comes from evolution.

Now let's go back to your favorite debate:

Some evidence of this would be nice, and something more concrete than what you think. — Sir2u

:
1. https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0716/Why-is-screaming-so-effective-Scientists-explain
2.https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/6ntlln/why_is_screaming_a_reflex_when_frightened/
3. https://www.bustle.com/articles/97928-why-do-we-scream-its-basically-a-survival-mechanism-says-science-so-dont-let-anyone-tell - point 4

Is that not what I just said? So you imagine her and get a hard on. — Sir2u

- No, wrong again! My dick got hard the moment I SAW her without imagining her.

So now you believe me, they imagined going to places. That was what made them desire to go there. Them they started imaging how they were going to get there, thus came invention.
Please provide some sort of link to this scientific fact, I am always interested in this stuff. — Sir2u

- They imagined because they were curious to find out what's up there. Come on man, you can do better than that! The first-moment man saw the sky he asked himself what's up there, and that is curiosity. After that, he started inventing explanations using his imagination. The process is exactly vice-versa.

Imagination is a tool for satisfying our desires. We come from animals, and first of all animals have instincts and desires, not imagination. If you believe I am lying, please provide me with links to these scientific facts. You are the one disapproving something obvious, you should bring proofs.

How could you explain wanting(desiring) to visit far away places as instinct? — Sir2u

- I have already answered - CURIOSITY (instinct).

So you say that wanting to go from A to B is a desire, something instinctual? Again, I cannot imagine how you are going to explain that. — Sir2u

- Well, you should start imagining, because you love imagination and because I am actually capable of explaining to you. Going from A to B could mean get food among many others, and that is definitely embedded in our genes. Curiosity and necessity make you do that. Curiosity helps you to find new information, possibly vital one. You need me to provide you with other scientific proofs on this one or you just trust my word? Ok, I guess you don't take my word for granted so I will show you something nice.

''Curiosity can be seen as an innate quality of many different species. It is common to human beings at all ages from infancy[5] through adulthood,[1] and is easy to observe in many other animal species; these include apes, cats, and rodents.[2] Early definitions cite curiosity as a motivated desire for information.[6] This motivational desire has been said to stem from a passion or an appetite for knowledge, information, and understanding.'' - WIKIPEDIA

Key word: DESIRE

So man desired to go from A to B and built a boat? Would it not be more sensible to say that he saw a log floating in the river and imagine how he could use it to get to the other side and see what was over there? Without seeing the principle of flotation at work I doubt that all of his desires would get him far. — Sir2u

- I think the desire to get on the other side of the river started in man the moment he saw the other shore.

Comprehensible to whom? I would understand the difference between abezido and nuralemina :D — Heiko

Than your answer to my question would be no and I personally agree with you. So why do you think that way, what are your arguments?

As I tried to explain: What is comprehensible must be rooted in reality.
A color-blind cannot understand the difference between colos. He may understand that non-color-blind can distinct the look of objects. He can understand the theory of wavelengths and understand why non-color-blind can distinct those colors. So he only can distinct those "colors" with the help of some appartus.
If I just started to call some things "abezido" and some things "nuralemina" you will never understand.

Edit: And Caear would likely understand the cellphone - you would just have to take the long route of explanation. — Heiko

I totally agree. But the substance of my question lies exactly in the issue of our capability to comprehend every comprehensible thing of the reality, or if reality has things that aren't comprehensible to our mind but comprehensible to a more evolved brain.

Eg.: I don't see how humanity or any other super-evolved civilization would ever be capable of inventing a political system totally different from any other political system we have already discovered so far, because I consider that what we call extreme left - center - extreme right + total anarchy and everything in-between represent 100% of all possible political systems.
So my question is: could I be wrong about this and there are other political systems that my brain can't comprehend, but a more evolved brain could?

Maybe there's more to he reality than physical and abstract. Maybe there are things incomprehensible to human mind, but comprehensible to a more evolved mind. Do you think that is possible or physical + abstract contains everything possible?

In other words, is our brain capable to comprehend everything comprehensible or we are far from that point?

So things like traveling from a universe to another or even create universes, understand the infinite and live forever are simply ''a dog bark'' for a super-evolved being? So our brains are not capable to comprehend everything that is comprehensible yet?

Ok, let me give you an example: if you traveled back in time and met Ceaser your smartphone and explained to him that this tool is based on electricity, satellites, and waves, he wouldn't understand. But if you explained to him that a smartphone is a tool that helps people to communicate from long distances, he would definitely understand. Moreover, he would be capable to understand the functions of the electricity, satellites, etc, if explained properly.
Try this with a dog and he will never understand.
I am sure we will be ''Ceaser'' at one point in the future, but will be become the ''dog''?

You mean will evolution make us stupid? — tim wood

No, I mean evolution (technological or natural) will make something that our current brains could not comprehend. For example, they would invent science fields that our current brain cannot invent or understand, or invent some technologies that not only we would incapable to replicate, but we wouldn't be able to understand their purpose and meaning. Forget about a super space ship traveling from a universe to another, that would be rudimentary for them. Possible?

The instinct to survive and the idea to call someone from far away are two separate things. Instinct would say fight or run, or maybe scream. The scream is not a call for help, but a reaction to the situation, one does not think that just by screaming help would come. Then the third option is imagined, call for help. It would not be a big step to then imagine calling to someone far away. — Sir2u

- Screaming is a reflex and it is totally related to calling for help. I could agree it could have other functions as well, like scaring the animal or provoking mercy, I don't know, but it is definitely related to the instinct of calling for help.

So as soon as this poor young lady appeared you got a hard on and you had no idea why? Of course your body has its own reactions to situations in which it finds itself, in this case a reaction to pheromones in the air. But that was your body reacting , not you. Unless of course you want to admit that you are nothing more that a zombie reacting to the environment without the capability to think. Along the same lines do you desire to sweat when you get hot? No right it just happens.
Now if you start to think about how well her blouse is filled and get a hard on, then it is the imagination that is fueling the desire. — Sir2u

- the body reactions are in fact fabricated by the brain.

How could you explain wanting(desiring) to visit far away places as instinct? Until less than a couple of hundred years ago few people had traveled more that a few miles from their places of birth, and those that had been motivated to travel afar were mostly considered eccentrics or worse.
The possibility of easy travel has made people imagine going to those places thus creating desire. And no, someone inventing a boat was not a desire to float on water, it was a way to get a job done easier. The desire to work less did not create boats, imaging a way to do that did. And then they imagined what else could be done with a boat, like visiting places that were over river. — Sir2u

- This is so ridiculous, sorry to tell you that. People imagined traveling to parallel worlds long before inventing the boat, and this is a scientific fact, not an assumption.
So in your case, the invention of a super space ship comes first, and then you imagine and wish to travel to different universes? It makes no sense. Same as for the boat - they wanted to get from point A to point B, it is exactly the same principle as going from a universe to another. The boat is a tool, a space ship is a tool, they are nothing more than means to satisfy one desire and that is to travel from A to B. Simple. As for those who didn't travel, they did so because of other factors, not because they couldn't desire or imagine doing so.

How could you explain wanting(desiring) to visit far away places as instinct? — Sir2u

- curiosity.

As soon as you give me one that is. But we started talking about desire creating things and now we have moved to direct or indirect responsibility for creating them. — Sir2u

- No my friend, you got it wrong! That was the whole point of the debate, not desire vs imagination vs ideas vs whatever. There is a finite set of ideas/desires (call them as you wish, it is not relevant), for example flying, being immortal, being able to communicate from long distances instantly, to travel to other worlds, to have sex when you want to with whom you desire to, etc., that have determined so far absolutely any technology invented so far. Yes, the technology itself is not predictable in terms of design or properties, but it is from the perspective of purpose. Eg. imagine going back in time and show your smartphone to Ceaser and explained to him that this tool worked on electricity, with the help of the satellites and waves, he wouldn't understand. But if you explained to him that this is a tool that helps you to talk with somebody 1000km away from you instantly, he would be amazed, but he would definitely understand and resonate.

So the issue I have raised in the first place was that after we satisfy all possible desires/ideas on the list that I've mentioned above, what will happen? Will our brain invent others or we will simply stop there?

My cats have lots of desires, but I seriously doubt that any of them have imagined having a remote control door to get into the house. Thus, unless I give them one they will never invent it. — Sir2u

The desire of human being to have his door/gate opened without the effort of the owner is OLD AS HECK!!! Come on dude, really? Of course King Richard didn't imagine a remote control, but the desire of having his gate opened was there.
Desire - ...... - Invention

Again, name me ONE technology that serves directly or indirectly to a desire that wasn't there already.

It is impossible to desire something without being able to imagine it. — Sir2u

No man, it isn't. When I was a kid I have a sexual desire for a girl in my class in the form of erection, but I had no idea what sex was and how it was supposed to be made.
Sorry to give you this maybe inappropriate example, but it is obvious that in the case of biological creatures like humans, instincts come first and in many cases, instinct = desire.

I believe desires always come first, because they're a matter of instinct, but it is also irrelevant for my question. So I think you are right.

I didn't say people would imagine the shape of the technology (eg. a box containing apps), I said that in the end, the cellphone is nothing more than a tool satisfying the desire to communicate from long distances, and that is a very old desire.
Name me one technology that serves directly or indirectly to a desire that wasn't there already.

You even say so here yourself, the person imagines the act and then desires it.

Please name one thing that you can desire without imagining it first. — Sir2u

Well... the desire of surviving the cheetah attack. I believe the survival instinct obviously comes first, so in my example the desire comes first, not the imagination. Therefore, it's exactly vice-versa the way you said.
But even if you were right, that wouldn't change much the fact that the ideas that lie at the base of absolutely 100% of today's technologies are old as hell.

Now I totally disagree! Not only your statement does not follow a logical path, but there's an abundance of evidence that ideas as communicate with other people from distance instantly, traveling to parallel worlds, virtual reality, and many others are very old.
In fact, I truly believe they are simply instinctive. Let's take the need of communication because you've mention it. Imagine a woman in a cave being attacked by a cheetah while her male partner is hunting far away. Of course she would wish not only to communicate instantly and ask for help, but also for his husband to be there instantly (teleportation).

Well, that is a good point.
I agree on the torture part, but the part with nature is a bit more complicated in my view. Probably immortality will be an unachievable process in the absence of human intelligence, so if a natural disaster catches you, you would still die from natural causes like hunger or old age.

When you got a wireless phone for your house did you not wish for a phone that you could walk around anywhere with, when you got a cell did you not want to talk to it to instead of typing on those little keys, and then one that you could see the other person on. That is how innovation works. — Sir2u

I don't see it that way. The cell-phone was just a step ahead towards pre-existing goal: to communicate with others from distance wherever you are. Nothing new in this.

Technology will stop the day that humanity does. — hypericin

- Agree, but I was talking about the evolution of technology, not the technology itself.

What you say about the environment and culture is perfectly true. It's just that, as I mentiond, technologies are based on a finite set of ancient ideas, and so far neither culture nor the environment have brought completely new desires, but rather have managed to model ideas according to their characteristics (I am talking about the environment and culture).

When all the (possible) desires of cave-man are fulfilled and brought to an optimal level, the culture and the environment will only have the capacity to diversify, and diversity can be considered evolution only up to a point.

I do find your answer challenging. I have thought about this many times. But what makes something to become irreversible? It's like having infinite power, and immunity. I could actually give an example: I have some things in my house that I care for, but I could give them for free. Other things are more important and I care more for them, so I would sell them only for a good price. As for my apartment itself, it is very important for me so I wouldn't sell it for 500.000 USD (although it costs around 50.000 USD). But at the end of the day, I would probably sell my apartment for 1 million USD. So everything I've exposed has a finite resistance. But if someone asked me to lose a dear member of my family in exchange for infinite money for the rest of my life, I would refuse. So basically, at least from this perspective, there is something with unlimited resistance. So where is the border between limited/ reversible and unlimited/irreversible?