It means that mental processes have the second property but not the first.

Edit: maybe it is better to say minds instead of mental processes.

Something like that: To be is to be the value of a variable.

Some dualists argue that mental processes are not physical in the same way God is not physical.

@Janus I dont know. It depends on who you ask.

Numbers, shapes, ideas like determinism or freedom.

Conclusion: Don't trigger feminists in the future because you will get banned.

Usually theists say that God has the second property but not the first one. Or dualists say the same for the mind.
Objects without properties 1. and 2. are called abstract objects.

So it is a matter of belief whether you think 2. is needed or not in the definition.

Being physical means
1) to exist in space and time and
2) to participate in causal relations.

This is a somewhat standard definition imo.

The only thing I know is when I got into a somewhat cynical "conversation" with her about seductive females I got a ban warning and my comments were called ugly sexism.

You know a significant segment of the shoutbox is about constant flirting and we all know the dynamics of that. I am not suprised at all that she became a moderator.

Rejecting the existence of mermaids is not the greatest error.

The greatest error is when we assume the truth of the null hypothesis based on that it wasn't rejected. (when doing normality tests for example)

Mermaids have arms. I accept the null hypothesis that I have arms. Therefore I am a mermaid...
This is why I dont believe in statistics.

Well, if the ontological argument fails then so does my argument. The more interesting thing would be a refutation from somebody who thinks the ontological proof is valid.

P.S. are the ontological argument and the best of all possible argument from Liebnitz essentially linked? It seems to me the greatest reality would not just include God but the whole world, right?

They are linked somehow in this argument. I don't think they are linked otherwise.

I find it reasonable to believe that a possible (or imaginable) reality in which I am greater is greater than a possible reality in which I am not as great.

2 does not follow from 1

2. follows from the definition of God and not from 1. If the creation of God isn't the greatest creation imaginable then I can imagine a being whos creation is greater than God's creation. That creator is greater than God which is a contradiction.

3 greater than what?

Greater than not being real.

@andrewk
@Metaphysician Undercover

On one hand it is reasonalbe to expect a "proof" to be logical, which requires complex concepts to be well-defined. On the other hand one can argue that metaphysics is more general than logic because it adresses everything while logic investigates only a fraction of reality. (Concepts like "everything" have different meaning in logic and in meaphysics.)

I think your debate clearly shows the continental-analytic disagreement and won't be resolved anytime soon.

They can be seen as fundamental methods by which we build truth tables. In this sense their truth is something beyond the scope of truth tables.

It is so obvious that this is a troll. Why are you feeding it?

I dont understand why you refuse my example since all your examples are temporal so far.

At this very moment the actualities of the world are the only factors relevant to my life at the next moment. But this is not what 3.) Says imo. (At least if we want actualization to be a useful concept)

At this moment there is a possibility (or potential) that I will die of a heart attack tomorrow or I will die of cancer a year later. These events exist only as potentials and not as actualities. So the "last scene" of the actualization of my death exists only as a potential and not as an actuality.

Saying that these events, namely the potential causes of my death -one of them will turn out to be true and all others will turn out to be false- are actualities -which is a consequence of 3.)- is just like hard determinism.

And the general statement 3.) is exactly hard determinism.

If the concept of actualization you were talking about is independent of temporal causality and is based on the so called "hierarchy" then I think you should further clarify what you mean by that because it contradicts my intuition at least.

"3.) A potential cannot be actualized except by something already actual."
I would argue this point.

What do we mean when we talk about actualization? If the actualization of an oak tree includes the whole process that starts with an acorn lying on the ground at time t0 and ends with a fully developed tree at t1 then 3.) is wrong in my opinion.

At t0 there are many events needed to the actualization of the tree and, which events exist potentially but not actually (like specific weather conditions). These events will or will not become actual somewhere between t0 and t1 but they are not actual at t0. This shows that proper actual world states are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the actualization of complex systems.

If we assume that the actual reality at t0 determines what possible events will become actual in the future then 3.) becomes true but we pay the price of assuming hard determinism.

A weaker claim is that 3.) is true only in infinitesimally short time periods. That is still arguable but much more acceptable.

Well this is not about emotions. I also wouldnt argue with a politician about philosophy for example.

I'm here to seek the truth and not to win arguments. I find your comments disrespectful and I simply don't enjoy the conversation.

I dont want to go into details about how the academic system generates unhealthy competition or how national intelligence works.
I have right and reason to be skeptical about things Im not able to observe.

I have the same amount of direct evidence for the existence of quarks as that for the existence of pink unicorns (zero in fact). I have reason to dismiss both if the only factor I take into consideration is direct evidence.

Well as I told you before I think being sincere is not optimal for selfish individuals on any level. Its not about conspiracy theories.

You may repeat what wikipedia or a textbook says about quarks but there is nothing in the macroworld that can give anybody an intuition about events in the microworld. So probably you will never have an understanding of quarks like you understand your cat or any macroworld object. But that is also irrelevant.

Just to give a "definition": your soul is your substance. But if you dont get why the definition is not important then all this is pointless. The "soul" gets meaning after youve experienced it. The analogy doesnt fail. The analogy is about believing indirect observations. I have never mentioned definitions.

My point is that there are cases where we dont have access to an experiment and we also have reason not to believe in it. You may be more trustful with people than I (so the analogy is misleading for you but not for me) but after all it comes down to our perspectives.

Well, since nothing (space, matter nor time) at the lowest scale is continuous and the problem with the chessboard doesnt come up I think you have to at least reformulate your claim.

I had edited my post before you finished your answer. A scientist is a human being under the control of government.

Your claims that we can understand or comprehend quantum objects is false. We may have theoretic models and observations. We can make predictions about them. But we will never know what they are. We have no clue how can anything be in a superposition.

I dont even bother looking up a definition of the soul because it is totally irrelevant.

There are critical cases in science with great economic, political, technological or other impact. These cases should be taken with as much scepticism as religion (ie. with loads of scepticism). Now the existence of a particle with such a limited observability may count as a critical case.

My answer about the definition of the soul was that we also dont know what quarks are. We have some experimental facts about them. Sometimes they act like particles sometimes they act like waves but we have no clue what they could be. There are different definitions for the soul and I dont want to just talk about a specific one since what is relevant is the method by which someone experiences the soul.

I think I could recreate the experiments you mentioned. I have a good reason to believe that the scientific method works. However I have a good reason not to believe in the sincerity of the government (or other human beings for that matter). We are all humans at the end. There is a constant information and economic war between states (and between people). I dont think that sincerity is an optimal diplomatic economic or political strategy. Governments (and people) have always lied and today is no exception. I think thats an okay reason not to believe indirect observations.

The same scepticism applies to religious views aswell. I never said that I believe anything the priest tells me but pointed out that I have to believe the same indirect observations. A reason from the priest could be moral, psychological, social, environmental etc.

Well, you don't seem to accept that starting from different definitions of observation we get different concepts for science. At this point there is no reason to go on with this imo. You can keep repeating "misleading" which itself will be misleading.

I see no point in further analyzing the problem since you don't accept subjective experience as an observation. Your other points, I don't even want to address them because they show lack of openness and lack of will to understanding.

The comparsion may be misleading from your point of view but there are other points of view. From the perspective of some of those it is not misleading. You may think you know the answers but the difference between science and religion is still subject to debate. You should read some Mikael Stenmark.

You have only provided meta-arguments (like you have conducted experiments and you have reason to believe in science but without providing examples of those experiments or reasoning) that has 0 proof value. A cult member would be arguing the same way.

It is unreasonable to say that the comparsion is misleading. A religious person would argue that religious metaphysics is completely justified. Just because religious claims are more subjective and depend more on psychological factors doesn't mean religion is total bs. I think a person's opinion depends heavily on which group has indoctrinated him: scientific or religious.

On the other hand science is not as exact and objective as one would think. The paradigms of reason and rationality of the enlightenment have completely failed in the context of society.

Your argument deserves a gold star.

But there are empirical claims against the existence of a conscious entity able to create a universe. Every conscious entity has a nervous system and could not survive the conditions of a big bang.
Edit: and could not act "before" the big bang.

Well you have a point. But as I said the evidence of the priest is psychological (and can be indirect like happiness) and not scientifically measurable.

My example with the farm is an observable example of a place with very high moral standards. This place can be argued to be not as good as but collectively morally a much better place than other places.

You did not explain why the analogy is false you just answered the OP. The structure of both claims are the same: somebody asking for faith which will be later verified by (subjective or objective) evidence.

Edit: I suppose you also know that the interpretations of quantum mechanics are just as mystical as that of the soul.

False why? Would you explain?

The priest could say theres technology and such but did science make people happier? Maybe, maybe not. I think most of the everyday technologies are useless and make people depressed. Does religion make people happier and morally better? He could claim that. So the priests evidence is psychological in nature.

There is a cult in my country that has a farm. A police magazine made an article about them a couple of years ago: there were zero crimes committed there in the 20 year history of the farm. Thousands of people go there every year. Thats something.

All right the speech of the physicist was purely a metaphore for the belief system in science. The point of my claim is that a leap of faith is needed even in the most rigorous sciences. Also there are other similarities between science and religion.

Power over budgets and people is hierarchical, but real power in science is influence, which tends to be driven by the value of one's discoveries, and that is not very hierarchical.

I would argue this. People who answer questions originally raised by the scientific community are rewarded but try to build a new theory or say something completely new and your are f...ed.

So your theory is physical. But Physics on low scales doesnt work like your model. There is no definite position of particles until they are observed. Matter is not continuous in the euclidean sense. Now I dont want to pretend that I understand Physics but I think it is fine to say that your model does not describe reality.

There is always a theoretical possibility for everything. Santa Claus could be time travelling or quantum jumping or whatever. Your claims are totally subjective as Ive said in my previous post.

There is always an interpretation outside of our logic.

Laws of nature are merely observational facts (or theoretical interpretations of them) and not dogmas. Newton's laws were the ultimate laws of nature until proven wrong.

In my opinion there is a law of nature that no conscious entity could have created the universe. Why? Because there is 0 observational evidence for anything like that and that consciousness can exist only in time and not before time and because every conscious entity has waaaaay less energy than is needed to create a universe etc.

But if you accept that there can be a conscious entity capable of creating the universe you also have to accept that this entity can be a rabbit. There is the same observational evidence for each: 0. Laws of nature are based on observation so dont come with those.

And we are back at the first answer. There is at least 50% chance that the universe was created by a rabbit.

I dont get your logic. You say:
1. We have always observed (not X) and never observed X but there is no natural law saying that X is impossible. Therefore the probability of X is at least 50%.

And 2. We have always observed (not Y) and never observed Y therefore there is a natural law that Y is impossible.

Here X is the possibility of a conscious entity being able to create a universe and Y is the possibility of a rabbit being able to create a universe.

Your argument seems to be totally subjective.

In fact we can observe that anything that has consciousness is a human being so there is 0% chance that there is anything conscious capable of creating a universe.

No natural law says that the existence of a mutant rabbit that is capable of creating a universe is impossible. Therefore we have at least 50% chance that a rabbit has created the universe.

Since the only conscious beings we have ever oserved are humans we have no reason to conclude there is anything with conscience capable of creating a universe. Your argument fails either way.