The argument is, on the one side, that numbers are real, independently of anyone who is aware of them - which is generally known as mathematical realism or mathematical platonism. It grants mathematical objects reality, albeit of a different order to empirical objects. — Wayfarer

I thought we had already resolved falsifiability and were simply talking about evidence of something non-physical at this point. But ok, if that is your problem, I read it. Its a debate I'm well aware of. Where is the evidence against falsifiability? I have no idea what you're trying to show with this article on an age old problem.

If you believe falsifiability is not a criterian I should hold, please explain to me what in this article backs that.

You need to understand why mathematical Pplatonism is incompatible with materialism. That article spells it out in two different quotes. — Wayfarer

How about you just tell me and link those quotes? I'm not going to do your work for you Wayfarer. I didn't ask you to do my work for me.

Since you did not reply with any evidence of the non-physical, then we both know you don't have any at this point.

At least that was a start - but it doesn't develop. The expression 'a setting devoid of anything conscious but an observer' is very confusing, indicating you hadn't really come to terms with the basic problem. — Wayfarer

Then why didn't you engage with me then? Why didn't you point out where I was wrong? I'm not here to read other theories. I'm here to get evidence from you about non-physical reality. You can type all of these other replies avoiding the issue, but you can't type out showing where in this theory there is proof of the non-physical?

Again indicating you have no grasp of the philosophical issue. — Wayfarer

That is on you. If you expect to throw a linked set of debates that would require me hours of reading without any guidance or lead on your part, then its just a convenient excuse for you to run away from the issue. I've clearly addressed everything straight with you. I haven't asked you to read the entirety of neuroscience. That's dishonest. I've held you to everything I've written here, not vague theories and debates.

You also avoided the greater point I made. I stated, "

Demonstrate to me these things are non-physical, and I will agree. You noted there are some suppositions and debates about this. This means there are people who think these things are material. That isn't evidence. That's just indicating what we don't understand. — Philosophim

I asked you to point out where the non-physical was noted. You did not. I noted that because there was no conclusion, it was a debate, and that would mean that there are also people in this debate who think things are material. If it is inconclusive, then that means neither side knows. You did not say I was wrong here either. And if I was not wrong here, then I was surely right in not spending hours reading up on what amounts to an inconclusive debate.

You're lying to yourself Wayfarer. Do you think a good God would want such a thing? Do you think you have to deceive yourself and others because your personal emotional feelings are more important than integrity? I'm a former Christian Wayfarer. I'm not saying you shouldn't be a Christian. But I am noting you aren't acting like one now.

You said nothing about mathematical platonism. — Wayfarer

I said plenty. And I said why it wasn't evidence. And you didn't refute this.

You simply dismiss the idea of psychosomatic effects on the basis that thoughts are physical. — Wayfarer

Lets define "psychosomatic effects". Any result pertaining to the influence of the mind or higher functions of the brain upon the operations of the body, particularly bodily disorders or diseases.

I didn't deny that. What I said was that this doesn't show that thoughts aren't matter and energy. No, I am not saying there is a difference between an imagined piano and a physical one in terms of thoughts. Wayfarer, your mind doesn't touch a real piano. Your nerves interpret that touch, then travel to the brain where the brain makes some sense out of it. Your brain doesn't need nerves, or a piano, to have thoughts about a piano, and practice strengthening neural pathways. Nothing in that article claims that consciousness isn't physical, or that the brain and thoughts are not physical.

If thoughts aren't composed of matter and energy, what are they composed of Wayfarer?
— Philosophim

They're composed of ideas. Your dogma is that ideas are brain-functions. — Wayfarer

What are ideas composed of Wayfarer? Its not dogma for me to claim that thoughts and ideas are composed of matter and energy, its a conclusion based on the evidence I know.

[quote="Wayfarer;668534"it's the only claim you make - 'everything is physical'.[/quote]

Don't be dishonest now. I clearly stated that what is physical, is matter and energy. If you find something that isn't matter and energy, you've found something non-physical. I've asked you to provide me an example of something that is not matter and energy. You claim ideas aren't made of matter and energy, give me evidence. If its not matter and energy, what is it? If you don't answer in the next reply, then you and I will both have clearly determined that you don't know. Be honest and address the request.

We're making clear points with each other.
— Philosophim

You're not showing any sign of understanding any of the points that I've made, even in principle. — Wayfarer

Upon reviewing, I have. Maybe you haven't understood mine?

We already know thoughts are composed of matter and energy.
— Philosophim

Your commitment to that falsehood colors everything you say about it. Thoughts are composed of the relationship between ideas, and ideas are not physical. — Wayfarer

I've been asking you repeatedly to show me evidence of what non-physical is, and you haven't. If thoughts aren't composed of matter and energy, what are they composed of Wayfarer? We have evidence through physical manipulation of the brain that thoughts can be triggered and changed. Give me evidence that thoughts are composed of something besides matter and energy, or I'm right, and not holding a falsehood. You want to demonstrate that what I hold is a falsehood, prove it.

Its just that you need to demonstrate why they have merit, and why the show the OP to be wrong.
But I didn’t assert that the OP was wrong. I just pointed out that it made various assumptions, and thus the conclusions might not follow if different assumptions are made. — noAxioms

NoAxioms, isn't that true about anything? I mean, I can just come back and state if you had made different assumptions and conclusions, then you could be wrong as well. Well, yeah. There's nothing meaningful or useful in such a statement.

It is appealing to define the world in such a way that all definitions and assumptions are valid, because then you feel like you can never be wrong. The problem is, it breaks down because you arrive at a glaring contradiction. I can claim, "No, some definitions/assumpsions are more valid than others," which is a direct challenge to your viewpoint. If you persist in your viewpoint as more valid than mine, I win, because I've shown you hold a contradiction. But if you say my viewpoint is just as valid as yours, then I've claimed your viewpoint is invalidand you accept this. So again, you run into a contradiction.

So logically, if we are to think in a process that does not result in a contradiction, we must hold that some definitions are more valid than others. And that means, just because you can propose an alternative definition or assumption, it in no way means its existence challenges or defeats another definition or assumption. You must, to have a logical argument, demonstrate why the assumption I'm claiming is inferior to an alternative assumption that would break the argument.

You’re invoking the premise “Something must exist to type a reply” to demonstrate the premise. The statement is a positive example, which falsifies nothing. To do the latter, one must posit the negation:
P1: Property of existence is not necessary for the interaction between entities.
P2: Two entities X and Y interact.

Now prove that X and Y necessarily have the property of existence without begging your premise. Then you’ve falsified it. — noAxioms

That did not show how my two sentences begged the question. Stating what a definition entails is not begging the question. To do anything, you must exist. That's part of the definition. If you do something, then you exist. We're not proving the definition of existence. We're proving you exist. Did I beg the question that you existed? No.

According to your logic, you proposed a definition for existence which does not follow English. To exist, is to have the property of interacting between other existences/entities. To be an entity, is to exist. You essentially stated, A = ~A then in premise two you stated nothing that had anything to do with A. The example is nonsense, because whether or not X and Y interact has nothing to do with the definition of existence you've proposed.

I drive at this point because there are valid interpretations of the world that don’t give any meaning to ‘property of existence’ since ‘exists’ is not defined as a property but rather as a relation. You’re asserting that such an interpretation is necessarily wrong, despite the growing support. — noAxioms

You need to re-read the OP. The entire OP is about relational existence.

I didn’t make any mention of ‘current’, so I stated neither thing. — noAxioms

Yes, you mentioned that I was assuming "current" was real. Its been a focal point of the discussion. If you assume that "current" is not anything more than an assumption, then you'll need to demonstrate why your assumption that this is the case, is real.

I took a look at your A and B series, and it doesn't revoke what I'm stating at all. If you're going to present a different series of time against an argument, it must be used to show where the argument falters. If I don't understand how the B series revokes the OP, that's because you didn't demonstrate that clear. I've been addressing your argument in relation to the OP, and what "current" means. So far, I'm not seeing how it revokes this. If you think it does, please try again, and I will see if I missed something in your explanation.

We bury or burn the corpses of the same loved ones we nurture when alive, so clearly the fine details or the structure of brains/bodies is important to us. The structure the sound waves we bark at one another is also crucial. I suppose it's plausible to stop at these patterns and say (speculatively or economically) that we are only such patterns. And perhaps you include all this implicitly in your 'we are only bodies and brains' position. — lll

Yes. This doesn't make human interactions any less meaningful. How we function does not change the reality of our function.

But there are also philosophical reasons to argue for 'something more' that do not include any such comforts and only seek a more comprehensive and consistent account. — lll

I agree. I was just answering why in particular this topic tends to pop up more than others. In my discussions on this topic over time I simply find a pattern that you find a lot more people of a religious and spiritual nature in the camp of the non-physical, then you do in the camp of the physical. Further, generally these arguments are ill-defined, and will not actually provide what they mean by non-physical. You can find genuine people who are willing to engage the subject rationally, but I would say a lot of the motivation is not rational curiosity, but a desire for a particular emotional outcome. This is of course an opinion, and should not be taken as fact.

You don't find some empirical evidence for why things aren't themselves. You're just forcing a proposition that's already taken to have no truth-conditions in FOL to somehow be true. It's incoherent. — Kuro

When did I say empirical evidence? All I'm noting for the condition of falsification, is that we have a clear postulate we can put forward that would show when the proposition was false. If A=~A, then A=A would be false right? Take the simple note above and try to explain to me why A=~A is not a negation of A=A.

~A is considered in A=A. But A=A returns true even granting ~A. ~A is literally just a negative truth valuation for A. — Kuro

Then you agree with me. The potential for something to be proven false, does not mean it can be proven false. Falsification does not mean, "It is false". It means there is a condition we can propose in which our claim would be false. If A=~A was true, then A=A would be false. If you agree with this, then you understand. If you don't, please explain how if A=~A were true, then A=A would not be false.

Like I've shown you earlier in the truth table, you can value A with any combination of truth and false and it'll always be equivalent to itself. There's no way out of it. — Kuro

And again, if something is provably true, it doesn't mean we can't invent a scenario in which it would not be true. The invention of the scenario in which it is not true, also does not mean it can be concluded that it is not true. You seem to be under the impression that falsification means "likelihood or chance" that it can be proven false. That's not what it is. Its just the presentation of the condition in which a claim would be false. And A=~A is that falsification presentation. It is of course, NOT true, which means that A=A is not false. But it can still be falsified. Does that clear it up?

"When" 6=5? There is no time where 6 is equal to 5. I'm actually appalled that we're debating such a simple notion. — Kuro

That is because you are not understanding what I am saying. I am not saying 6=5. I'm just noting a case that IF 6=5 was true, then 5=5 would be false. Thus 5=5 can be falsified. It doesn't mean that 5=5 is false.

This is not the same as me taking offense. Generally, assume that I take no offense unless I indicate otherwise :). — Kuro

Same here! Without non-verbal, it can be difficult to understand what another person is feeling, thanks for clearing that up.

If a proposition is impossible, it is necessarily false, whereas if a proposition is false it is not necessarily impossible. — Kuro

Correct. But in both cases, there is a possible negation to consider. We may conclude that negation is impossible, but we can conceive of its negation, and what it would entail.

So tautologies return true having exhausted all possible truth values of false or true to all the propositions embedded within it. So there are no conditions where they're false. — Kuro

Correct, there are no conditions in which they are found to be false. This does not mean there is not a potential condition in which we could consider it being false.

Can you address the point in which I provided an example of God vs. Jesus when it was not possible for there to be falsification? In the God example, there is not a consideration of anything which could be considered falsifiable. Let us not forget this debate is about providing evidence that is falsifiable for or against consciousness being physical vs non-physical.

Not at all what I said. If you're going to paraphrase something, you need to understand it. The statement I made was supported with a reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Platonism in the Philosophy of Maths. The topic is 'the ontological status of math.' It is a debate with a long history, and you haven't shown the least evidence that you understand it. — Wayfarer

My point is a debate is not evidence to understand. The conclusion of a debate is evidence to understand. I see evidence that there is a debate. And if there is a debate, the outcome is not known. Stating, "We don't know the outcome on something" again, is not evidence.

My job is not to understand a debate. I am not going to read a long storied history to prove your point for you. Your supposed to convince me right? Your job is to clearly present evidence of the non-physical as a cause of consciousness that is something you and I could debate. To show that I am holding the same standard towards you, I'm not saying, "Well there are debates that show there is no non-physical. There's a long storied debate of only the physical being true. You haven't demonstrated to me you've understood the entire history of this, go read it, you're ignoring, etc."

We're making clear points with each other. If I want to cite evidence in neuroscience, I will show evidence of things which are conclusive, not under debate. I will also cite specific outcomes, and not debates themselves as evidence. I ask the same in return.

I'm saying that to show that consciousness is non-physical, you need to show it interacting with the brain in some manner. It must not be matter or energy. You are proposing, that something that is not matter or energy exists.
— Philosophim

Yes. That would be judgement. — Wayfarer

No, that would be an opinion. If you want to say you've judged your opinion to be true, then you need to supply some evidence. Otherwise, I could come back with my opinion without evidence that there is no non-physical with the same response, "Yes. That would be judgement". No, that would be silly.

This is evidence! Its falsifiable with clear claims. Lets examine your evidence to see if it demonstrates there is clearly something non-physical going on.

So, if the brains reduction was not correlated with the reduction of consciousness, we would find that the man was just as intelligent as a person with an average brain. Except in the article we see, "Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled."

Further, the article notes, "The findings reveal “the brain is very plastic and can adapt to some brain damage occurring in the pre- and postnatal period when treated appropriately,” he says.

“What I find amazing to this day is how the brain can deal with something which you think should not be compatible with life,” comments Max Muenke, a paediatric brain defect specialist at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, US.

“If something happens very slowly over quite some time, maybe over decades, the different parts of the brain take up functions that would normally be done by the part that is pushed to the side,” adds Muenke, who was not involved in the case."

So it doesn't appear that researchers and scientists are seeing something at odds with matter and energy in the brain. Everything still seems explainable with a matter and energy model. And again, if they didn't understand why this was possible, that just opens it up to debate. An opinion of a solution to a debate, is not evidence that the solution exists, even if it is a satisfying opinion or "seems perfect".

Your second reference notes that thought can rewire the brain.

"When the scientists compared the TMS data on the two groups--those who actually tickled the ivories and those who only imagined doing so--they glimpsed a revolutionary idea about the brain: the ability of mere thought to alter the physical structure and function of our gray matter. For what the TMS revealed was that the region of motor cortex that controls the piano-playing fingers also expanded in the brains of volunteers who imagined playing the music--just as it had in those who actually played it."

But this is not evidence of the non-physical. We already know thoughts are composed of matter and energy. Just like when you use your muscles, the brain rewires itself to compensate. The brain itself is adapting based on what is happening up there. Nowhere in the article does it claim that there is something outside of the brain, or outside of matter and energy causing the brain to change. I suppose Wayfarer you must find it odd that thoughts are essentially a combination of matter and energy. But that is what the current physical model of the brain presents. Thoughts are physical. its your job to give evidence that they are not.

Metaphysical as a word basically means self reference to the physical.
— Philosophim

That's not the definition of metaphysical. You don't get to make it up. — Wayfarer

You are correct. I noted a branch of metaphysics, and applied that to all metaphysics. I want you to see I can admit freely when I am wrong. Its very important that both of us take this mindset, or emotional and personal feelings get in the way. My real point again is that debates are not evidence. Now, if you would like to explain to me why debates are evidence, we can consider this. But so far, you have not.

The silence of nothing is deafening.
— Philosophim

'Those who have ears, let them hear' — Wayfarer

Lets keep it to debating the claims eh? Otherwise I would come back with something like "Remove the plank from your own eye before pointing out the splinter in your neighbors," That back and forth gets us nowhere.

Ok, but imagine if all that existed was an infinite spiral water slide going vertically down forever. The water that has always traveled on it has the slide as their alpha or reason for moving. But the slide is eternal so there is actually an alpha supporting an infinite series. — Gregory

That's correct. If we ask, "What is the cause for the slide?" and there is no prior causality, it is an alpha.

A physical Alpha? — Gregory

Sure. I'm dealing in what exists. There's plenty of physical causality to go around, so that's what I work with.

There doesn't have to be a loop or an infinite past. The first motion is the first motion and there is nothing prior. In physics this is the big bang. There is no past for the big bang. But I think your correct that a first act is needed — Gregory

That's definitely an opinion many people hold. The OP is arguing that it is logically necessary that there is a first cause, that it is actually impossible for infinite regression to exist. What that first cause is could be anything, because a first cause doesn't have a reason for its existence, so there would be nothing to limit what it could be. Is the big bang the first cause? Very well could be. I argue a bit later that a problem with a first cause, is that its likely almost impossible to prove any one thing is a first cause, thought it is logically necessary there be one.

While someone could argue that a first cause "could be a God", what fails is the claim that a first cause, "must be a God". When something has no prior explanation for its being, it doesn't need any rules, such as conscious creation, for its existence. So while the argument doesn't rule out the potential of a God, it mostly certainly ends any arguments about the necessity of a God when considering any first cause arguments. In short, this defeats all current cosmological arguments for God for God's necessary existence.

I have, and that is what I've concluded. Its your job to show me why my conclusion is wrong. "I don't think so," is not philosophy.
— Philosophim

Well, the law of noncontradiction seems to imply idealism. Are you an idealist? — Agent Smith

Could you please show how this references my original statement? Here, I'll reference it again.

The problem of evil reveals to us that we cannot label a God as limited to acting a certain way, when that God is without limits. That's just logically inconsistent, and impossible. — Philosophim

Where am I wrong in these two statements?

logically inconsistent, and impossible
— Philosophim

You might wanna reconsider that. — Agent Smith

I have, and that is what I've concluded. Its your job to show me why my conclusion is wrong. "I don't think so," is not philosophy.

Yes, you've understood the nature of "The problem of evil". The problem of evil reveals to us that we cannot label a God as limited to acting a certain way, when that God is without limits. That's just logically inconsistent, and impossible. If you reduce even one of the omni's to "The most X that is possible", then the problem of evil is solved.

If the first cause is material than we are on the same page. If it is spiritual than we are not — Gregory

You shouldn't have to ask if you read and comprehended the OP.

Lets get to your argument.

"1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows."

So there is either 1,2,3,4 or infinite,1,2,3,3 — Gregory

Sure, just don't forget that its causality. 1 causes 2, causes 3 etc. Its not just counting.

Y: represents an existence that may or may not have prior causality."

So everything — Gregory

No, its a representation of any identity. One of which, may be everything. Think in terms of sets.

"X: represents an existent prior causality to Y."

First cause — Gregory

No, that's just a prior cause for any Y.
A ball is falling = Y
It is at its velocity now because of one second of gravities application = X.

Z: Represent an existence caused by Y."

World — Gregory

You lost me here. Y (the falling ball) hits the ground 1 second later. = Z Why is Z on the ground one second later? Because gravity acted on the ball for one second at Y. X -> Y -> Z.

"Alpha: A Y existence that is identified as having no prior causality."

Alpha is X — Gregory

No, Alpha would describe a Y with no X. If Y existed, but one second prior there was no ball, no falling, and nothing to make that ball then that particular Y is an Alpha.

a. There is always a X for every Y. (infinite prior causality)."

So a first cause for every series — Gregory

No, this is describing the entire chain of causality is infinitely regressive.

"b. The X/Y causal chain eventually wraps back to Y/X (infinitely looped causality)"

Making the loop based on the first cause — Gregory

No, there would be no first cause within the set loop itself. This is an infinite causal loop.

"c. There comes a time within a causal chain when there is only Y, and nothing prior to Y. This Y is Alpha. (first cause)"

There can still be a world. Begging the question — Gregory

No, this is just explaining one of the 3 possibilities, not asserting anything. This is just that there is the possible consideration of an Alpha.

I hope that cleared up the first part. Take the premises here and go with the rest of the argument. Also, again, its not a proof for God argument. Relax.

Kuro, I think you might have missed my point. If A is not A, then it can't equal A right? So if I said, "A" exists, and someone demonstrated to me that "A" did not exist, then A would be proven false. That's all I expect. There needs to be a situation in which the proposition COULD be false. In other words, lose the logic charts, you're missing the point.

An example of a non-falsifiable argument would be, "A = A" and someone made it impossible for ~A to be a consideration. So lets put some examples instead of letters here.
"God exists and made the world" = A. If I said, "Could I attempt to show that something else created the world?" I would receive a response. If the person said, "Well yeah, I guess that's fine," I would then ask, "So what would be enough to show that God did not make the world?" Here they need to give me an answer.

If they say, "God is beyond our understanding and definition," then there's really nothing to falsify. There's no definition or understanding of God to claim, so there is nothing to refute either. In short, non-falsifiable." If they say, "Why yes, there was this fine fellow name Jesus, and he said this, and did this, and that's God," then we have something that could be false. It could be that Jesus did not exist. That he wasn't sane or trustworthy. That the book that tells his stories isn't verifiably correct. That sort of stuff.

Now it very well could be that God exists and created the world. It could be that the bible is completely accurate, Jesus did come and do some things, and that's why we know God exists. It being true does not mean it is not falsifiable. Being falsifiable does not mean it is false. It just means we have something that could potentially be refuted, because that is naturally what happens with anything that exists.

Back to your example.

For example, 5=5 or 6=6 are still unfalsifiable truths. — Kuro

No, they are very falsifiable. When would 6 not be 6? When 6=5 is one example. Basically if 6 = ~ 6, then 6=6 is false. We can test this. It turns out that ~6=6 isn't true, but a contradiction. Therefore while we have a means of falsifying, we cannot show that 6=6 is false. Therefore, it must be true.

I recommend this introductory course on logic from Stanford. In supplement, I'll also link this article explaining mathematical equality. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with these on your own freetime going onward with this conversation so that we have an easier time communicating. — Kuro

Much appreciated, but we don't need it for what we're talking about as I think you can see from my examples above.

I'm aware that falsifiability is not the same as impossibility, rather it is simply possible falsity. I'm not sure why you felt the need to tell me this. Clearly, some propositions like a=a or some mathematical formulae like 5=5 have no falsifiability conditions and simply cannot be impossible. — Kuro

I felt the need to tell you this, because I felt you did not understand falsifiability. I didn't take offense to your recommendation to read up on logic, don't take offense on me telling you things I don't think you understand either.

So I think you understand now. Physicalism is falsifiable by stating it could be the case that physicalism is false.
— Philosophim

In the case of my example, the opponent of physicalism does not simply falsify physicalism but allow for its logical possibility, rather find an internal contradiction in physicalism. All contradictory sets of facts are logically impossible in any consistent modal logic, i.e. they simply could not be true. There isn't a world with square circles, or vice versa. — Kuro

Recall you just mentioned that you understood falsifiability was not the same as "impossibility". If physicalism is contradictory, then its false. That is a clear and identifiable way it can be false. Therefore it is falsifiable. Now is it actually false? That's a different debate.

I think falsifiability as a philosophical or mathematical requirement is an incoherent position because both philosophy and mathematics have some facts that are given the status of being necessarily true and also unfalsifiable, like a=a or 5+5 and what not. — Kuro

Again, those are both falsifiable statements. But, we cannot meet the requirements to show they are false. Therefore they are proven to be true.

You haven't addressed the argument concerning the sense in which mathematical objects, numbers, and by extension also, scientific laws and physical principles, are real, but are not material. You haven't responded to that at all. You might look at that again. — Wayfarer

I noted earlier that stating, "We don't understand this, so I get to propose whatever I want" is not viable evidence. Demonstrate to me these things are non-physical, and I will agree. You noted there are some suppositions and debates about this. This means there are people who think these things are material. That isn't evidence. That's just indicating what we don't understand.

Are there things we don't fully understand? 100%. At one time we did not understand how rain formed. Did that mean if someone stated, "Its obviously mystical power of the Earth," that this is evidence? No. Could we sit and debate it back then? Sure. But for it to be viable, for it to be considered something real, it needed evidence.

I really can see why you're saying this, but again, what I'm trying to point out is that you're thinking of what the non-physical must be in terms of 'non-physical things'. You're saying if 'we found something that was obviously interacting...' You're trying to imagine a non-physical or immaterial thing, or substance, that acts as a cause. — Wayfarer

No, I'm not. Can there be something non-physical Wayfarer? I'm not stating it has to be a thing in the sense of what's physical. I'm saying "thing" as "what exists". If you're saying something non-physical can't exist, then the conversation is over. Now, I'm not doing that to you because I want you to know I'm being charitable to your argument. I know you believe something non-physical exists. If it exists, what is it? In this case, it is consciousness. And in this case, we know it must interact with the brain. And if it can interact with the physical world, we can detect something non-physical, in the physical world.

But we need to go back and examine what the basis is for those criteria. The fact that only what is measurable and objective is to be considered by scientific analysis is an assumption - the naturalist assumption. — Wayfarer

No assumption, just logic. If the brain can interact with the non-physical, then we can detect it. It doesn't even have to be fully known. It just has to be something we detect that is not matter or energy. If you deny that the brain can interact with the non-physical, then you lose. You've just cut the non-physical from ever being experienced by the physical. It then, does not exist. No assumptions. No bias. No "the physicalists will say." Ignore that crap. Talk to me, not them.

So, you're saying, if you want to show something non-material, you have to demonstrate its existence, like it's lava core, or a bitter apple, or some other sense-able object of experience that you've referred to in this discussion. Some thing. — Wayfarer

I'll clarify again. I'm saying that to show that consciousness is non-physical, you need to show it interacting with the brain in some manner. It must not be matter or energy. You are proposing, that something that is not matter or energy exists. You state you have evidence of this as consciousness. Our current understanding, manipulation, healing, and destruction of the brain is built upon our understanding of matter and energy. Is there something that we can detect interacting with the brain that is not matter or energy? Yes or no?

But the cause of these maladies is not physical but affective or emotional - you've interpreted something in a way that causes these effects. — Wayfarer

But we already know that's not true. Depression is something that can be fixed with medication. Emotions are tied to brain states that can be altered by changing your physical interactions. You can watch a movie, eat good food, get good sleep, etc. These cause changes in the communication of your brain. Emotions are physical expressions. They are physical reality. Reduce a man's testosterone and you'll see him feel powerless. Increase it and he'll feel powerful and aggressive. Again, we can manipulate this physically.

But as rational sentient beings, we're also constantly judging, reacting, supposing, surmising, and so on. The intellect, the seat of judgement, is constantly weighing up, judging, and reasoning. Those are the faculties that I say are not meaningfully physical. — Wayfarer

But Wayfarer, they are. We see the brain react to stimulous. We know certain areas of the brain are needed for sight. We know that you can become brain damaged and no longer see or imagine color, even though your eyes work perfectly. Here's just one example from 2013. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-researchers-can-detect-who-we-are-thinking-about/
Take a brain damaged patient Wayfarer, and their capacity to judge and reason diminishes substantially. That's a physical result from a physical change.

Now again, if there are gaps in places that we don't understand about the brain, that doesn't mean there is evidence for something we can make up. If there is a gap in understanding about how the brain works, and we can find something interacting with the brain that is not matter or energy, then we can say, "There is evidence of something non-physical in our brain, this might be consciousness." But absence of understanding, is not evidence for anything. It just means we can say, "We don't understand what is going on."

And I question whether anything is completely physical, because 'the physical' is not, as yet, fully defineable. — Wayfarer

I've clearly defined it here. Matter and energy are physical. Again, talk to me, not to "the physicalists".

From debating with you at some length my observation is that you're committed to the framework of physicalism or scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

I'm actually not. I'm committed to what is most logical. Wayfarer, I have argued against a LOT of assumed theories and questioned and changed many assumptions about myself in life. That's what being intelligent is. Those who cannot consider alternatives and are set in their ways, are not rational people. They are emotional animals who crave the satisfaction of feeling right more than the cold and sometimes emotionally devastating act of learning what is right.

But I'm arguing that the physicalist outlook is grounded in a methodological assumption about what ought to be considered as evidence in a scientific sense. But that methodological assumption is not really a metaphysic of what is and what is not real. — Wayfarer

Which is fine. But we can invent whatever we want in our heads and be emotionally attached to it. Does that make it real? No. Evidence of its existence and use in the world makes it real. And if you have no evidence when someone asks? Just say you don't have it. Nothing wrong with that either. If you feel you have to do word puzzles and jumbles to avoid saying those words, then realize you're more interested in lying about something for other to accept your idea, then telling the truth and letting them decide on their own. I haven't had to use fancy words, concepts, or complex ideas to convey my point, because I'm more concerned about clarity and seeing a correct outcome then emotional gratification.

Furthermore, there are real metaphysical debates, such as the nature of mathematical objects, or the nature of the wavefunction — Wayfarer

Meta means "self reference" Metaphysical as a word basically means self reference to the physical. Another way to view it is meta means "Talking about", so basically talking about the nature of the physical. And again, debates are fine. Ideas are wonderful! But claiming ideas are reality, when there is no evidence for it, is not.

It's the same argument. You can't imagine an infinite series going into the past without a God? — Gregory

Ok, if you did actually read it, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Again, as I posted last time, I am not following Aristotle's argument. If you comprehend this, and think I'm wrong, then go to the argument and point out where I do that.

Instead, what you're doing is called a "straw man" fallacy. Its where you prop something I'm not saying, then beat that while saying my argument is wrong.

It also has NOTHING to do with a God. I've also stated that once before, so it appears you can't comprehend my responses either. Go ahead, find the part of my OP where I talk about God. Or continue to construct and beat your little straw man in the corner while I look on in amusement at your lack of comprehension.

I don't know your background very well, so I'm having patience. Please read the argument, and cite parts of the argument where you believe it to be wrong.

Aristotle argues that infinities on their own are unstable and a past infinity needs a root in a first cause, just as you say a first member as a cause is needed — Gregory

But I don't say what Aristotle is saying at all. Mine deals with sets, not the instability of infinities.

Your OP, which I read months ago — Gregory

You should probably read it again before commenting on it. I believe you've misremembered what it says.

I do not know Hawking's, Krauss's or Aristotle's argument. Mind pointing out where my argument coincides with Aristotle's? Mind pointing out where Hawking's or Krauss's theory would have a problem with my model?

But that does not establish 'a' first cause. Why would you posit just one? — Bartricks

1. Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows. — Philosophim

"at least one". Where am I claiming I'm only positing one?

That's like if I said 1+1 = 2, and you came back with, "You assume 1 exists".
— Philosophim
That's funny. I had pretty much had that line thrown at me (by an actual physicist) and I was arguing the opposite, that the numbers need not exist for the sum of 1 and 1 to be 2. — noAxioms

Ha ha! Well done! I mean this genuinely and not sarcastically. Always question and poke at "generally accepted knowledge". My point was that we can't take the standpoint that they're merely assuming what is generally known. We can give credit that theirs is the societally reasonable stance, and if we are to challenge it, we must given evidence that it is wrong.

My name implies that I assume nothing. So I'd say that it depends on the definitions of those words. I often take the relational view where the phrase "X exists' is meaningless since it is not expressed as relation. — noAxioms

Also very reasonable. In my experience unclear definitions in discussions are one of the biggest problems in philosophical discussion. And I include myself in those who give unclear definitions. Feel free to always ask what I mean, or point out inconsistencies.

Of course, you can take the intuitive view and not explore the alternate ideas, but then you're just rationalizing answers that you've already decided on. In other words, feel free to bid me a good day if I'm not helping. — noAxioms

I am more than willing to explore alternative ideas. Its just that you need to demonstrate why they have merit, and why the show the OP to be wrong. If I've constructed an OP about a specific set of rules and conclusions, if you want me to consider I'm wrong, you need to demonstrate why those set of rules and conclusions fail. I'm not rationalizing my assumptions here, I'm using common vocabulary to communicate ideas that most people understand to exist.

Let me help you out. If you don't exist, you won't type a reply.
No, I don't buy that. It begs its conclusion. — noAxioms

It really doesn't. Begging the question is often misapplied. Its most associated with circular reasoning. "God states that God is good, therefore God is good" is begging the question. The statement itself has the assumption that the conclusion is right. We can trust God if God is good, therefore if God says God is good, well, God must be good right?

Let me rephrase what I noted.

Something must exist to type a reply.
If something types a reply, it exists.

Can it be falsified? Yes. If something does not exist, then it cannot type a reply. Since you typed a reply, we've concluded you exist. Now, I'm quite sure you're mind might be racing to think, "Well what if I'm a bot, etc." I don't care. Your existence is based on whether there is a reply given. Something had to type a reply. I don't care what it is. But based on the falsifiable premises, it exists.

Also, one more thing, when you accuse a person of a logical fallacy, it is best to show them why in an honest conversation. Fallacies are a placeholder to summarize an issue, but they shouldn't take the place of good arguments.

The unicorn has a horn, which by the above logic it cannot because the horn doesn't exist. I told you the unicorn would come into play. — noAxioms

It is how you define it. If you mean exist objectively as an animal independent of our creativity? No. Does a unicorn exist in our minds, and can I draw one on a piece of paper and tell a fantasy story about it? Yes.

The alternate view might say that on Feb 5, 2022 we all observe the state of the world of Feb 5, 2022 (at least the nearby stuff), and not some other state. That date is no more or less 'the past', 'the present', or 'the future' than any other date. They all have equal ontology. — noAxioms

No, that's incorrect. By using dates, you are stating that there are states that are not "current", and states that are "prior to the current state". Can I experience the date of Feb 5, 2022 currently? No, because that's not today's date. I also cannot experience the prediction of tomorrow's date. These are pretty clear and undebatable notions of time. Stating, "The past present and future all all the same" doesn't hold up in any meaningful sense. I mean, you typed your previous reply earlier right? That's not now. How do you get around that?

Also, I am not stating there is a current moment "elsewhere". I'm talking about right here. Basic stuff, don't overcomplicate it or add things in that I'm not claiming.

So you're assuming an unproven suggestion.
I assume nothing as any kind of asserted truth. — noAxioms

If you're just throwing out "Maybe its this," without any type of assertion to its validity, then its worthless. Maybe cookie monster is behind the government machinations of China. Can't assume he isn't after all. Don't make the mistake that just because you can come up with an idea it means it has any worth in application to reality. An active imagination is not what is clever, its proving what we imagine exists.

There is no working theory of the universe that assumes a current moment — noAxioms

If there was no current moment, we wouldn't be able to think of any theories. That's just silly. If everything was stuck in the past, there would be no now or progress. If there was no potential for the future, there would be no past, and no progress. The current time is the transition from the potential future to the factual past. All of this you can experience right now in your brain. If you can experience it, its real.

There is no device that measures the rate of advancement of the current time. Clocks measure proper time along a worldline through spacetime. — noAxioms

No, they just measure the rate of time from future potential to relative past. A second for example is X number of electronic cycles, quatz vibrations or what have you. Just like an inch measures the start and end of distance. If it bothers you so much that we can't get a number to represent an infintismal point called "current awareness", fine. It doesn't matter to the argument. Take a state Y, then note a prior state X. We don't even need the definition of "current" to understand this. All you need to understand is "prior state".

And even beyond that, I just have one question. Why is reality 4D spacetime?
We don't know that it is for one. Physics doesn't answer 'why' questions too well. Philosophy does sometimes.
If you're asking the purpose of the universe being the way it is, it doesn't seem to have a purpose. — noAxioms

Well my point is, there either is a reason for why it exists, or not a reason. What state caused the universe to be 4D instead of just 3D? There is either a reason for this, or there is not. Time or purpose really has nothing to do with it.

Why do people try to prove there is a God unless they are trying to convince themselves or can't handle people having different beliefs? — Gregory

Why do people not read an OP, and assume the writer is trying to argue for something they are clearly not? Please actually read the OP before commenting on it, as you are out in space while I am planet Earth.

m saying that our understanding of cause is not as clear as we assume. When we talk about events that cause events, we’re referring to agents. When we talk about the cause for an event, we’re referring to a principle, on whose behalf an agent acts. The primary principle is potential, which is not a ‘first cause’ in a temporal sense, but in a value sense. The qualitative and structural distinction is important. — Possibility

I think you do not understand what I mean by cause, and that is fair. It is very simple. A state exists in moment B. Now it exists in moment C. Now, if the forces etc. of B lead to the moment of C, then B caused C. If C does not have any prior cause, or reason for its being, then it is a first cause.

I simply take it to the extreme and get a result. Even in the case of an infinitely regressive system, versus a system that could have starts and stops along the way, there is always the question, "What caused the system?" There eventually comes the answer, "It just is, it has no prior explanation".

Your post misses the understanding of the OP, which is fine. The definition of causality I put forth should be easy to understand. If not, please ask me where there is confusion.

I see, the way it was presented, I thought it was an aside puzzle. That being said, an unsolved thought puzzle that might be true or false is not evidence. If I said, "It might be true that lava core is black at the center of the Earth," unless I show that is true, my supposition in no way challenges or presents evidence that the lava core at the center of the Earth is not black (currently we know it as yellow).

It is true that this indirectly equates 'the empirical' with 'the physical', but I think that is a fair assumption. What is generally accepted as empirical evidence, is something that can be detected physically. Is that not so? — Wayfarer

No, I don't think that. I've noted that physical reality is matter and energy. If you can show something beyond matter and energy as existent, than that would be evidence of of something non-physical. I suppose what is laced into the assumption, is that what is non-physical must interact with the physical. And this is not a dogmatic assertion, but a logical consequence. Regardless of your opinion on consciousness, I think we can all agree that every sense that we have is physical, and that we are made up of physical bodies. And since consciousness is contained in our bodies, and not outside of our bodies, if consciousness is non-physical, it interacts with us in particular, and not in some random location apart from our bodies.

So an example in terms of consciousness, lets say a person was thinking, and we found something that was obviously interacting with the matter/energy in the brain, but could not be classified as matter and energy. At that point, I believe it would be safe to call that non-physical. But if we cannot detect anything that can interact with the brain, when obviously our consciousness must be interacting with the brain, we're inventing something that isn't there.

I don't think that's an unfair requirement for the concept of something that is non-physical. I'm not going for a "got ya" or rigging the game to where you can't win. But if the non-physical is impossible for the physical to detect, then its an imaginary idea because then it couldn't interact with the brain. That's a lack of evidence. Its fine if you want to play a game with it, and imagine if it was true, what it would entail. But if you're going to claim it exists, you need evidence. Again, this is not unfair or overly demanding.

Please clarify. Are you implying there is no "now"?
— Philosophim
No, I said that you're making the assumption that there is one. — noAxioms

No, I am not making an assumption, I am noting a basic given definition. That's like if I said 1+1 = 2, and you came back with, "You assume 1 exists". If you want to counter what is assumed, that's fine. But that's on you, not me. Anyone with basic education knows what "current" and "1" mean. Its up to you to demonstrate why the regular and assumed use is broken.

We clearly exist currently don't we?
I can think of no empirical test that falsifies the alternative, so no, it isn't clear. — noAxioms

Let me help you out. If you don't exist, you won't type a reply. Let see if you type a reply. If you don't, I'll assume you don't exist, and this was all a fever dream. :)

If we observe something currently, then that state is current as well correct?
That statement also assumes (begs) it. — noAxioms

No, that's just basic consequential logic.

Physics suggests (doesn't prove) that the universe is 4D spacetime, and is not something contained in time, but rather something that contains it. — noAxioms

So you're assuming an unproven suggestion. I thought you didn't want to use assumptions? Also, if 4D spacetime contains time, then we as as 3D objects would be able to measure it. And if we're able to measure it, we can say, "This moment now is current". Imagine an X Y graph. I can measure the X, the Y, etc. Just because that 2D plane is on my 3D desk, doesn't mean I can't use the X Y graph. Same with time.

So your assumption, which isn't a given, doesn't really refute the idea of "currently existing", causality, or time. And even beyond that, I just have one question. What caused 4D spacetime to exist?

Vague references and a lack of evidence will convince no one.
— Philosophim

Well, clearly that's inaccurate. The world is made up of beliefs without evidence. — Tom Storm

Ha! And I almost edited that out when I initially typed. I should know better on the philosophy boards. What I should have said was vague references and lack of evidence are not convincing arguments to a rational person.

Did you see how your language shifted? Now you’re referring to cause as a principle, which is structurally different to an agent. — Possibility

My language didn't shift. Are you saying there is no cause for why it is, thus an alpha, or are you stating there is a cause for why this is?

Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state.
— Philosophim
This makes the presumption that there is a current state. — noAxioms

Please clarify. Are you implying there is no "now"? Do you not exist at this time? We clearly exist currently don't we? If we observe something currently, then that state is current as well correct?

Causality is potential. To refer to it as a ‘first cause’ and state that it ‘must be’ is logically inaccurate. — Possibility

Causality is also an explanation for why there is a current state.

If you follow the logic of qualitative geometry, a two-dimensional shape can only manifest in relation to a three-dimensional aspect. Therefore, a four-dimensional existence can only manifest in relation to a five-dimensional aspect. — Possibility

And why is that? What is the cause for this?

Thanks, I hope you don't drink and smoke dope all day. All I'm really saying is that religious or mystical experiences or intuitions can be evidence for beliefs for the person who experiences them, but cannot be evidence for anyone else, because there is always the possibility of being wrong. And that possibility obtains also in the empirical sciences, which are perennially defensible. — Janus

No, I do not. Coffee is my vice, and that's it. I also want to apologize for that response yesterday, it was out of line and rude. I think the difference is between the way we use the word "evidence". Experiences and intuitions are feelings. Feelings are reasons why we do or believe things, but they wouldn't be considered evidence in my book.

Evidence would be something which proves that the conclusion we made based on our feelings was right. More importantly, evidence would demonstrate that what would contradict our conclusions, is wrong. So if it we found that when a person talks to God, there was a radio wave or something that left the brain and returned, we couldn't say, "Talking to God is only in your mind."

Human intuition and feelings are often wrong. However, there is nothing wrong with being honest that it is only human intuition and feelings. As long as you state, "Yes, there's no evidence for this, but wouldn't it be fun to explore!" there's no issue. Its when people start claiming that their intuitions and feelings are true claims about reality without any evidence, but claim there is evidence as I've defined, that the exploration has become dishonest and outside of the realm of truth.

Since there is no evidence of a universal mind, then it is false.
— Philosophim

I don't think it's that simple. Most scientific evidence is partial or inconclusive or unconvincing. For the sake of argument, let's assume a universal mind that computes the universe continuously at the quantum level, and its product is the universe as it is. What sort of evidence could one have that it is convincingly so or that it is not so? Is philosophical argument ever possible to prove or disprove the assertion? — magritte

Great post! First, lets qualify that "most" scientific evidence is a biased stretch. There is some science which is inconclusive or unconvincing, but it notes this. Very rarely does actual science declare its found truth when it clearly has not. That would be called bad science.

So what type of evidence do we need to provide for your assertion to prove or disprove your proposal? None, because you haven't set a condition for it to not possibly be disproved. Its not falsifiable. Its a story. A neat story. One that would be cool if it were true, not going to lie. I enjoy the creative exploration of the fantastic. But, one shouldn't get wrapped up in the emotions of the fantastic, and start thinking the positive emotions about it give you an excuse to believe that it must be true.

There's also nothing wrong with stating, "There is no evidence for this thought experiment, but what if..." Every played the game, "if you could pick any super power, what would you pick?" Great fun. Lots of philosophical spring boards can happen from it. But if someone starts saying, "Yeah, its possible we'll be able to alter our genetics to shoot laser beams from our eyes some day," the assertion has changed the notion of the discussion. At that point, you're not having fun about a thought experiment, you're claiming the thought experiment could be reality. And when you do that, you need evidence.

So if you are going to explore the notion that non-physicalism is real, you're going to need evidence. Even if you claim, "Well we know its not real, but what if," you should at least define what something non-physical is.

I did, and it went straight past you. — Wayfarer

You're assuming an empiricist position, and then demanding empirical evidence against it!
— Wayfarer

After that, nothing further to add. — Wayfarer

Anyone who is serious in an argument would repeat it if that was the case, concerned that the other person has missed it or misunderstood. I spent a lot of time taking your requests seriously and laying out the groundwork. I replied that I did not expect empirical evidence against it. I told you to give me some evidence that the non-physical exists. Surely if you believe the non-empirical exists, then you can present evidence of it right? You did not return this, and give me evidence. And if you don't want to, that's fine. But don't tell me you did, when you didn't.

As Wayfarer will tell you, there are philosophers and scientists who would say there is no evidence of physicalism. I suspect both world views in the end come down to a kind of faith. — Tom Storm

Except there is evidence of physicalism. If Wayfarer would provide evidence of some type of non-physicalism, or provide evidence why physicalism is false, then there would be a discussion. Vague references and a lack of evidence will convince no one.

Not really. Many forms of idealism argue for a universal mind (essentially a primitive instinctive consciousness) which holds object permanence and provides us a shared reality independent of our minds. Humans are dissociated alters of the Great Mind - that kind of thing. — Tom Storm

If it is backed by evidence, then there's something there. If there is no evidence, its just a made up wish. The falsification of the idea, is that there is no universal mind. Since there is no evidence of a universal mind, then it is false.

Fine, then don't give me the evidence. I go about my way unchanged. Enjoy the rest of your day.

It seems to me you are the one running away; deflecting because you can't come up with a counterargument to what I'm saying about the difference between public and private evidence, the subjective nature of judgements of plausibility in relation to metaphysical questions; and their consequent undecidability. — Janus

You did not address my entire post. Its been a pleasant conversation until now. I told you to give me your evidence, that I can intuit and think as well. I've been very clear what viable evidence would be. I indicated deduction vs. induction, because of this very important claim:

So though I might have an induction that my consciousness is separate from my brain, the premises of neuroscience conclude that my consciousness comes from my brain.

Do you get it? I want to know I will live forever Janus. I want to die, go to heaven, see family and friends again. I want to be able to drink and smoke dope all day and it not affect who I am. I have an intuition that this could be. But that's an induction. And there is no evidence that this will happen. You claim you have evidence. Well give it! Why are you holding out? Why can't you give me something where I can rationally pursue my induction?

If you truly believed you had evidence of what was non-physical, you would rush out to help me like the good soul you are. But you don't, do you? Because I believe you're a good soul, and if you had it, you would. So don't run away. If you're a good soul, try. And if you know you can't, then just say you don't have it. We'll both be happier that way.

I have no take on the matter, its an interesting topic I would need to think on.
— Philosophim

I suggest you do that before reflexively reeling off an answer. — Wayfarer

I did not reflexively reel off an answer. And that is not the topic. The topic is I provided what I would need as evidence of something non-physical that produced our consciousness. Now, are you able to do so, or can you not?

It's obvious; we intuit and imagine differently. I cannot feel your intuitions and vice versa. They thus cannot be evidence in the public sense you are asking for. — Janus

Janus, you just ignored the rest of my post. You are running away. Don't do that.

You would not recognize non-physical evidence. The only such evidence is that of the intuitive or imaginative faculties. But such evidence cannot be inter-subjectively corroborated. So it can never be evidence in the "public" sense, but only evidence to the individual whose imagination or intuition tells them that there is something beyond the empirical reality of the shared world. — Janus

Stop telling me what I will and will not accept, and just give me the evidence. I can intuit and imagine. Why do you think we can't corroborate that? I intuit that there is not something beyond the empirical reality of the shared world. I also intuit that invisible magical men exist that guide my every move. That's called a "belief". A belief is a very real thing. Beliefs are inductions, meaning that the premise of the belief does not necessarily lead to the conclusion someone holds.

The difference between an induction and a deduction, is that in a deduction, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. So though I might have an induction that my consciousness is separate from my brain, the premises of neuroscience conclude that my consciousness comes from my brain. A deduction is always more rational to hold than an induction. To prove the deduction wrong, you need to introduce a premise that demonstrates we cannot conclude that consciousness is purely physical. That requires evidence of something non-physical, not an induction.