Therefore non-physical principles should be different principles from those who are physical, for example I could came up with a law that is claiming that the energy is limited or being generated randomly etc. — Danileo

One argument for the presence of non-physical principle is why people can end up believing in those principles and transcending them to earth. — Danileo

I mentioned in an earlier post there are a few things that might be non-physical, they've just never come up.
Care to elaborate? — Punshhh

I just got obfuscation. If you start to pin him down he will miraculously agree with you. — Punshhh

↪Philosophim I think I am getting lost in the meaning of what is physical, for example if I start flying it would be physical? — Danileo

If your philosophy cannot allow for the existence of a song, and copywright to it, then all I can say is that it has a serious deficiency. — Wayfarer

Melodies, as discussed. Numbers, laws, conventions, chess. There are thousands of these general kinds of things that are grasped by the mind (but not by 'neural activity'). — Wayfarer

Your critique of my work reflects a surprisingly limited and elitist perspective on philosophy — Sam26

You say philosophy is solely “the love of wisdom” built on logic, dismissing belief-based arguments as mere fiction or faith. That’s not just a misreading of my project, it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of philosophy itself — Sam26

First, your assertion that arguing from belief isn’t philosophy, likening my NDE work to debating Gandalf’s height, is absurdly reductive. — Sam26

Philosophy isn’t an ivory-tower club for logic-chopping purists; it’s the systematic exploration of life’s big questions, engaged by everyone from Socrates to the average person pursuing meaning in a coffee shop. — Sam26

As I argue in my book, epistemology, a core branch, is precisely about how we form and justify beliefs, whether about black holes, morality, or NDEs. — Sam26

NDE testimonies involve real people reporting verifiable experiences, like accurate surgical details during flatlined EEGs, documented in peer-reviewed studies (e.g., 2024 ScienceDirect on consciousness continuity) — Sam26

You sneer that my work is “faith” or “religion,” not philosophy, because I explore consciousness survival. — Sam26

Philosophy has always tackled the speculative: Leibniz on possible worlds, Kant on noumena, even Chalmers on the hard problem of consciousness. — Sam26

Dismissing this as non-philosophical because it’s not yet “proven” ignores how philosophy engages open questions. — Sam26

My book and this thread confront counterpoints head-on. — Sam26

Finally, your patronizing advice to “apply my passion” elsewhere, charity, neuroscience, teaching kids, reveals your contempt for philosophical inquiry into the profound. — Sam26

A 2024 Taylor & Francis review shows NDEs’ cross-cultural consistency, suggesting a universal phenomenon worth exploring. — Sam26

If you think philosophy should only chase “real issues,” you’re not loving wisdom; you’re stifling it. — Sam26

Incorrect. The melody IS the same. RIght now, my 10-month-old grand-child is playing with an electronic toy which is playing the song My World is Blue. — Wayfarer

The problem is, that is not at all what philosophy of mind believes by the immaterial or non-physical. — Wayfarer

The fact you can only conceive of alternatives to the physical in terms of magical unicorns indicates a misunderstanding of the subject. — Wayfarer

A melody can be represented in musical notation or binary code. It can be engraved in metal or copied on to paper. Then it can be played back on different instruments or through digital reproduction. In every case the physical medium is different but the melody is the same. So how then can the melody be described as physical? — Wayfarer

I clearly told you I don't associate with the physicalist position.
— Philosophim

Every post of yours that I’ve read assumes physicalism. — Wayfarer

Maybe because you assume that everything is physical — Wayfarer

and don’t understand how anything can described in other terms — Wayfarer

A computer does not have a mind's eye, cannot imagine, and cannot experience anything. — RogueAI

When I imagine a sunset, I'm experiencing the colors. I'm seeing red. You're saying the redness isn't really there, it's just brain activity, — RogueAI

but that is easily contradicted by imagining something, hallucinating, or dreaming. — RogueAI

All right, let's talk about that. What is it about the brain that makes experience happen? What's it doing that my heart or gut biome isn't doing? Information processing? — RogueAI

Mental causes are really physical causes so I see no real difference in them than any other cause.
— Philosophim
Is there any need for the word "mental"? — Patterner

Are you claiming that if we got rid of all of these physical things that the information of music would be floating out in space somewhere?
— Philosophim

Certainly not floating in space, but existing in a similar sense that numbers exist. There is no 1, 2, 3, floating in space, these numbers must be instantiated physically to "exist", in your sense. — hypericin

Yet we routinely think of them independently from any particular instantiation, math wouldn't exist if we didn't do this. — hypericin

The physical notes I write on a page. The physical intstrument I play it with. The physical ears that hear it.
— Philosophim

Here, we only identify the notes as information. The instrument is a tool to convert the information contained on the sheet into audible music, and the ears interpret this. — hypericin

A song on a vinyl LP that is the same as the song you hear on Spotify. If you grant that it is the same song, this song cannot be physical, as their physical instantiation could not be more different. — hypericin

I created this thread to talk about the different perspectives regarding Physical and Mental Acts and how I believe there is a problem when using Causation at a micro and macro level as well as between nomological and metaphysical positions. — I like sushi

What are your thoughts regarding Mental Actions as Causal Actions? — I like sushi

When it comes to then trying to establish a Physical to Mental or Mental to Physical causal route a much bigger problem emerges as we have no grounding for what constitutes a Mental Act — I like sushi

Even within the world of physics causation is a quite difficult item to deal with at the extreme ends of the micro and macro scales. — I like sushi

Information is not physical. If it was, it could not retain its identity as it propagates through completely different physical mediums. Information requires a medium, but it is a mistake to conflate information with its medium. — hypericin

If the mind's eye is physical, then its contents should be physical too. But when I imagine a blue flower, my brain doesn’t turn blue. There's no blue in my skull. So where is the blue? — RogueAI

I was not labelling you I was labelling the position you are expressing. Physicalism comes in many forms. It is not a religious doctrine. — I like sushi

You were expressing that everything we know of, and can know of, is physical which is obviously (for most) associated with a physicalist position. — I like sushi

Philosophim non-physical for me, is defined by a property that is not found in the tangible universe, for example symmetry. — Danileo

What is symmetric in our minds? The time, with time comes notions like our own death and with it beliefs of what happens after we die.

Note that with this I am not saying that our mind is capable to produce perfect symmetric thinking ( as for that I am not sure ) but at least is close to it. — Danileo

No, I'm dismissing it because you can't show that it exists. You need to explain what it is to have a non-physical thing exist, then demonstrate that such a thing actually exists in reality.
I note you didn’t answer my question, what sort of proof do you require? You do understand, I presume how hard it is to prove something. — Punshhh

I have put forward a rational argument for consciousness to be present in life forms. A presence which doesn’t appear to be necessary if the world is just physical. If the argument has merit — Punshhh

Correction, you are claiming that consciousness is emergent from computation alone, aren’t you?
Saying it is emergent from physical processes is hand waving, because that also includes what a I am saying and which you were denying previously. — Punshhh

Line of argument is used in discussions of qualia, about differences between people’s qualia due to genetic variation. It doesn’t include the fact that 99% of the experience of one person is identical to that of another, with a nuance of difference. — Punshhh

We cannot know that. For all we know, there is a subjective experience of being a single cell.
You’ve just accepted my rational argument. That’s pretty much what I was claiming and you were rejecting. — Punshhh

We don't have the answer to what its like for something else to subjectively experience, therefore it is outside of what can be known.
This is incorrect, it can be known, we are it. We don’t fully know the processes involved, be it is known, we just need to be able to see the wood for the trees. — Punshhh

I’m not saying it isn’t a physical process, it’s just a different physical process, an ethereal one in a supevalent relationship with it’s physical partner. — Punshhh

↪Philosophim . Non-physicality is a way of describing not a object. — Danileo

I could do a reverse argument and say that what is physical is a construction of our mind and therefore is grounded on our mind. So the foundation of what exists occured in our mind and therefore all theories have the same validation in matters of how they are constructed (not talking on probability or proofs) — Danileo

↪Philosophim You understand that this is one philosophical position. It is called physicalism. — I like sushi

If you claim you are not talking about physicalism just spit out what you are talking about to avoid confusion if possible. — I like sushi

↪Philosophim and a physical process can only produce physical theories? — Danileo

What was your point?
You are dismissing the ethereal being because it can’t to demonstrated physically to exist. — Punshhh

No, consciousness is simply a more advanced form of computation.
To the extent, perhaps, that a chemical reaction is a form of computation. But that does not encompass what consciousness is.
You seem to be about to declare that consciousness is emergent from computation alone. That if there is sufficient computation going on in a system, or body, then it will be conscious. — Punshhh

I don’t know why anyone would think that AI might be conscious. Perhaps they conflate intelligence with consciousness. — Punshhh

Just like I won't know what its like for you to be subjectively conscious as you are either.
It’s not that difficult, we are near identical. — Punshhh

Yes, that all makes sense, but it doesn’t capture consciousness, it’s all within the scope of computation and intelligence. — Punshhh

But it is still a mechanical machine, you know levers and rope. — Punshhh

Have you come across the idea of a philosophical zombie? There could be another universe like ours, but without any consciousness. — Punshhh

Once they were self replicating,( I am oversimplifying to make my point) they were able to evolve more sophisticated forms. All very well, they were like our philosophical zombie. — Punshhh

Again, sounds like you're ascribing what is non-physical to a physical process.
No, they coexist in a supervenient relationship. — Punshhh

↪Philosophim a mental construction, are not physics a theory and theories come from our minds — Danileo

You have just re-asserted your claim that anything that can’t be proved to exist is a figment of my imagination. You have proved my point for me. — Punshhh

Yes, that's consciousness. Consciousness does not exist as some independent ethereal thing. It’s simply a category of physical process from the brain.
That’s not consciousness, it’s computation. The brain performs computation, like a computer. Are computers (AI even) conscious? They can perform the same computation as the brain, surely. — Punshhh

This is simply creating a category, but not denying its a physical process.
I am denying it’s a physical process, it has a supervenient relation to the physical. It is hosted by the physical, but is itself not physical. — Punshhh

You remove the physical process, this 'non-physical' thing does not exist independently as something real.
Perhaps, but the physical being would not exist either, in this scenario, they are joined at the hip. — Punshhh

Philosophim is not physical a claim of imagination too? — Danileo

Yes, here is the language game (in bold), because you are requiring something non-physical to be demonstrated with physical apparatus/experiment. — Punshhh

This different process is the evolution of an ethereal body, or being. A being hosted, maintained, sustained by the physical body. This ethereal body is a sentient conscious, self conscious entity with a rich experience of a subjective world, real experiences etc. But is entirely dependent on the physical processes in the physical body for its continued existence (in this world). It shares these processes with the physical body. This not only includes the chemical processes, but the processes of mind (x). — Punshhh

Now (x) can perform every mental action required for humanity to live in a material world. Without sentience, without self consciousness. After all, it is all computation. We know that computation can produce an intelligent body, because we have super computers and AI. All the senses in the human body can be responded to computationally without the body being conscious of them, experiencing them. They can be processed in the usual way, by the mental activity of the brain. — Punshhh

Citations, please. — Wayfarer

Many scientists are methodological physicalists for the purposes of doing their work, while remaining agnostic or noncommittal on the ontological status of consciousness. — Wayfarer

Moreover, many philosophers of mind—including those working closely with cognitive science—do not regard physicalism as an adequate or complete explanation of consciousness. — Wayfarer

But what is not explained by appealing to physical substrates is why and how such interaction results in semantic content, intentions, or meaning. — Wayfarer

To continue with the analogy: you can describe how a violin works in physical terms—strings, bow pressure, air movement—but that doesn’t explain what makes a musical phrase evocative, expressive, or meaningful. — Wayfarer

Semantic content is not a mere epiphenomenon of molecular motion. It’s a distinct order of intelligibility, one that involves interpretation, context, and intention—none of which are physical properties. They're not found in the particles or interactions. — Wayfarer

If you don't include the meaning, content, and intentions, then of course they aren't included. If you do, they are.
— Philosophim

This is tautological. — Wayfarer

To "include" meaning or intention in your description is not to reduce them to physics, unless you're simply smuggling them in and calling them physical. — Wayfarer

That’s what the “explanatory gap” and the “hard problem” are actually pointing to: not a temporary lack of data, but a categorical difference between the vocabulary of physics and the nature of conscious experience. — Wayfarer

↪Philosophim It depends what you mean by 'physical'. Plenty of people happily refer to subjective feelings as non-physical entities (qualia and such).

Then there is the question of what you mean by 'exist'. Numbers do not exist and nor does love (physically), and there is a vast array of abstract concepts that have no physical existence too. — I like sushi

I replied the way I did because of comments like the one I quoted above. — Sam26

If you believe X, and you argue for a particular conclusion, then you're doing philosophy. — Sam26

I question that the brain can be described in solely physical terms or as a physical thing. — Wayfarer

But a living brain exists in constant flux, generating experiences, meanings, and novel responses that seem to emerge from, but aren’t reducible to, these physical substrates. — Wayfarer

Even if successful, it would miss the semantic content, the intentions, the meaning being imparted. — Wayfarer

'It would be possible', wrote Einstein, 'to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.' — Wayfarer

How any combination of neurochemicals can 'produce' or equate to an idea or some neural content is currently completely unknown. — Wayfarer

↪Philosophim I am asking what you think. You sound like you are buried in the physicalist reductionist camp. What flaws are there with this position? — I like sushi

↪Philosophim You wouldn't know philosophy if it jumped up and bit you. — Sam26

The fundamental issue isn't whether NDE testimonies are true or false, but whether we're applying consistent standards. If we accept testimony about the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) or the existence of black holes, both beyond direct verification, why not testimony about experiences during clinical death? — Sam26

Many people mistakenly believe that if science hasn't confirmed something, we cannot claim to know it. — Sam26

Our deepest convictions about meaning, morality, and relationships transcend purely empirical methods. — Sam26

What's missing is a genuinely neutral investigation, one that neither assumes NDEs are glimpses of the afterlife nor dismisses them as dying brain phenomena. This requires examining the testimonial evidence with the same rigor we'd apply to any important knowledge claim, whether in science, law, or history. It means developing clear criteria for when testimony provides genuine knowledge versus mere anecdote. — Sam26

Yet, we are aware of things that do not exist for us through abstractions. We are 'aware' of abstractions. — I like sushi

Of course the onus is on non-physical positions to help physicalist positions rethink what 'physical' means now and coudl mean under a cognitive paradigm shift — I like sushi

1. AI does not have its own bodily way of perceiving the world. Everything that AI "knows" about us, about our affairs, it takes from human texts. Returning to the ideas of Heidegger, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, AI is deprived of temporality and finitude, it is deprived of living experience. Today it is a complex algorithmic calculator. — Astorre

How do they learn that? The elder could easily have brown eyes, as far as she's concerned. — flannel jesus

Why would they have? — flannel jesus

Nope. This topic is not an epistemic one. I'm not asking how you know something exists or not. I am looking for a belief system that is consistent with mind independence, and where the limits are placed is critical to that. — noAxioms

↪Philosophim I don't think so. I only think blue eyed people can leave. — flannel jesus

There is no 'mental' reality that exists apart from the physical.
— Philosophim

Them. They are physical. Their brain is physical. Again, this is very much like a computer cycling through one's and zero's in the machine. Just because its not emitting light that we can see, doesn't mean that physical processing isn't happening. — J