My concept of the non-physical is phenomena that cannot be detected by our senses and the scientific extensions of our senses and which cannot be explained by existing scientific paradigms. — johnpetrovic

I find this definition unhelpful. Electromagnetic waves were physical before we knew about them. In my view it is clearer to refer to 'known' and 'unknown' components of the physical world. If someone wants to make the case that some phenomena in the world is actually non-physical, that warrants a separate classification from the widely accepted belief that there are still unknown physical entities.

The soul is understood to be the agent of all living things. — Metaphysician Undercover

You use soul as a metaphor for chemical reactions behind gene expression?

Parfit defends a narrow and wide ontological sense in relation to abstract concepts like math, truths and possibilities. Take the statement:

“(R) if it had been true that nothing ever existed, there would have been this truth.”

... and his conclusion...

“(S) though there would have been this truth, this truth would have existed only in the wide sense and the non-ontological sense.”

I am fine with this. I also think when we ‘discover’ these truths, these abstract concepts assume a new, if ephemeral, ontological status in the narrow sense, as physical patterns in our minds. These truths derive their power from accurately modeling how nature works, and help our minds ‘discover’ new possibilities. We sometimes take action to actualize these possibilities and thereby create other ontological entities, like an airplane. I believe this particular ontological transformation of abstract truths requires a conscious host.

But 1 exists as the identity element. It is the name we give an actual universal symmetry. And can nature escape being a story of symmetries and their breaking? — apokrisis

Right, math and logic rules have been shown to be compatible with how nature work, which separates these concepts from other creations of the human mind (like Pegasus).

Forces of nature do not rely on our stories of symmetries and their breaking. We create these stories in through thinking in an attempt to make sense of these forces.

Non-physical things we have discovered so far, are objects that only exist in symbolic form, such as the objects and necessary truths of mathematics.

As for the mathematical truths not yet discovered, then I am forced to conclude, by my preferred epistemology, that they already exist. — tom

My view is that math and logical truths originated (at least on earth) as physical constructs in our ancestors minds because we both possessed the mental capacity, and the generalizing of recurring patterns in nature gave our soft selves survival advantages.

It is true that the number 1 does not directly describe something else that is physical, but directly describing something physical is not the purpose of generic thinking aids like math and logic truths.

I don't see how or why these thinking aids would exist without sentient hosts.

"Read Parfit, hence cometh Kantian reasoning. It's the act, not the outcome. It's the orientation, the lack of good will, that makes an act unethical."


By orintetation, do you mean strength of reason supporting the act? If so, I agree. In the case of speeding through a residential neighborhood without incident, I'm not sure how it makes a difference whether or not one has goodwill. Questions of motive are psychological in nature and don't change the danger of the act?

“My view of immorality is very straight forward and easy to understand. Everything that is immoral, i.e., all immorality involves harm in some fashion or form.”

I like your overall argument. Under your theory, is someone that speeds down a residential neighborhood 60 mph in a 20 mph zone, without hitting anything, causing harm?

You write:

“Morality was designed with the needs of the group in mind. Morality was not designed with the needs of the individual in mind. The reason for this approach was the team affect. A team, when optimized, can become more than the sum of its parts.”

Designed by who or what? If your answer is evolution, then how do you make the case evolution had a “reason?”. Doesn’t something need need the ability to reason to have one? If your answer is humans designed morality to achieve an end, I ask, is morality a choice we had? My view is that morality was blindly thrust upon us by evolution like a hot potato; the nature of our existence regularly imposes decisions upon us to act or not act in some way; there is no avoiding that our actions or inactions affect ourselves and others in significant ways. Throughout history we have managed to incrementally rationalize why we act the way we do, and have experimented with implementing various moral theories. Is this what you mean by designed?

In my view the best moral theory incorporates both the wide and narrow moral senses. The wide sense providing the advantages of the team effect you mention, and the narrow sense acknowledging that securing your own oxygen mask first is important. The question of what is right and wrong when the wide and narrow moral senses conflict, is one of the tough questions in moral theory.