Evidence of the Non-Physical

[epronovost]

Yeah, and that I am confused is physical, real, exists and is a part of the world. I have know that for over 25 years now.
I don't believe in reality like you do, but I am still here. Apparently.

Indeed your belief has no bearing on reality. You might believe the Moon is made of cheese, it wouldn't make it so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Indeed your belief has no bearing on reality. You might believe the Moon is made of cheese, it wouldn't make it so.

But you are in reality and answering me, right! So from non-reality I influence through reality you.

 

[epronovost]

But you are in reality and answering me, right! So from non-reality I influence through reality you.

No, note really; we are both and reality; your perception aren't reality they are simply your mental representation of reality.

You are falling for that reification fallacy again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, note really; we are both and reality; your perception aren't reality they are simply your mental representation of reality.

You are falling for that reification fallacy again.

So we have two ontologies, reality and are not reality. Or I don't really have mental perceptions of reality. You are in effect doing a version of duality.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

There is verifiable evidence that the physical exists. I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that the non-physical exists, be it evidence with physicality or otherwise. Do you have any kind of verifiable evidence for the existence of the non-physical?

 

[Nakosis]

No, the problem is that everything is physical, so the undetectable is physical. Since I believe in that in some sense according to your model, there is no problem, because what I do, is real, exists and is physical.

I didn't say everything is physical.
I'm saying that I accept as evidence is physical.
I'm also asking what non-physical do people have to support their belief.

The point that I would make is that everything we use as evidence is physical, unless someone can come up with something non-physical they use as evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

There is verifiable evidence that the physical exists. I have yet to be presented with any verifiable evidence that the non-physical exists, be it evidence with physicality or otherwise. Do you have any kind of verifiable evidence for the existence of the non-physical?

Nope, that's why I'm asking the question. I don't know that I'd agree with them it's evidence but I'd like to know what to them it might be.

 

[Nakosis]

I appreciate your honest response. It is in my experience, very very rare. In fact, this is the first ever response to the question of epistemology as far as I can remember, in this very forum. So maybe I never asked you.

Anyway, detection is not an explanation of your epistemology Nakosis. What is your source of knowledge in making this so called "detection"? How do you go about it? What is the subject? And how do you verify it? I mean, how do you propose to verify it?

Well it needs to be detectable to the human senses or detectable to instruments. IOW it has to have some measurable property.

For example we can physically detect voltage if it is large enough. However a voltmeter can detect voltage that wouldn't be large enough for us to detect through touch.

There exists a lot of things we can physically detect, like brain waves. EEGs can measure brainwaves so the measurement of brainwaves can be used to support a claim or theory.

So I'm not really asking for what one would physically use as evidence. I'm all good with using something physical to support what a person accepts as knowledge. Even if I may not agree with the conclusion. I curious what an example of non-physical evidence might be.

For example spiritual knowledge. As spiritual relates to the non-physical.

If you want to question my epistemology whilst I question whether Ontology has a non-physical source, that's ok I suppose.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, note really; we are both and reality; your perception aren't reality they are simply your mental representation of reality.

You are falling for that reification fallacy again.

So how do the fact that you know I have mental representations of reality, which are not reality, pass through reality and enter your mental representations of reality, which are not reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say everything is physical.
I'm saying that I accept as evidence is physical.
I'm also asking what non-physical do people have to support their belief.

The point that I would make is that everything we use as evidence is physical, unless someone can come up with something non-physical they use as evidence.

Okay, now I get you. That you only accept the physical as evidence is to me not physical. It is a mental subjective rule, which is a non-physical behaviour. I.e. you have no physical evidence, that evidence is physical. You have a mental rule, that you only accept physical experiences in relationship to you.
In other words you have an abstract rule that you only accept the concrete, whereas I use different mental rules for the abstract and the concrete and understand the abstract and concrete differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well it needs to be detectable to the human senses or detectable to instruments. IOW it has to have some measurable property.

...

I have found no way to understand the word "needs" as purely to be detectable to the human external senses or detectable to instruments. IOW it has to have some measurable property.

As far as I can tell your word "needs" don't meet your own standard for evidence. You are apparently conflating what makes sense to you with what you can sense through external sensations or detect with instruments.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you measure the criteria and determine the evidence for abstract thought, emotion, idea, or belief?

In fact, those things are ultimately physical -- they are the products of the wonderful, incredible complexity of the brain and its processes.

I know this is very hard to believe when you are experiencing any of those things yourself, but consider this: how can you transfer those things (abstract thought, emotion, idea or belief) outside of yourself, to another person?

And this is the telling part -- there is absolutely no non-physical way to do it. You can verbalize (your brain moves your lungs, vocal cords, mouth parts) to create vibrations in the air (those are physical), which can be detected by the hearing apparatus of other humans, and likewise converted to neural activity to get your message across.

Or, you might write your thoughts down (a very physical activity) which another person can again translate to neural activity through reading, using all the visual and translation apparatus they possess.

Some emotions you might communicate by tiny facial modifications and body language -- all physical -- which are detectable and understandable by other creatures like yourself who express similar emotions in similar ways, and can therefore grasp something like what you're feeling.

But there is absolutely no non-physical way for you to communicate your abstract thoughts, emotions, ideas or beliefs because they do not exist outside of the workings of your own very physical brain.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In fact, those things are ultimately physical -- they are the products of the wonderful, incredible complexity of the brain and its processes.

I know this is very hard to believe when you are experiencing any of those things yourself, but consider this: how can you transfer those things (abstract thought, emotion, idea or belief) outside of yourself, to another person?

And this is the telling part -- there is absolutely no non-physical way to do it. You can verbalize (your brain moves your lungs, vocal cords, mouth parts) to create vibrations in the air (those are physical), which can be detected by the hearing apparatus of other humans, and likewise converted to neural activity to get your message across.

Or, you might write your thoughts down (a very physical activity) which another person can again translate to neural activity through reading, using all the visual and translation apparatus they possess.

Some emotions you might communicate by tiny facial modifications and body language -- all physical -- which are detectable and understandable by other creatures like yourself who express similar emotions in similar ways, and can therefore grasp something like what you're feeling.

But there is absolutely no non-physical way for you to communicate your abstract thoughts, emotions, ideas or beliefs because they do not exist outside of the workings of your own very physical brain.

So we have 2 kinds of physical. Bodily and mentally. Now do everything with only your non-brain parts of your body or do everything with only your brain. Neither is possible and here is the limit of the non-brain body part in effect.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

That is that simple. The mental is connected to the bodily, but can't be done purely physical.
What we all in effect do, is to share aspects of the world but also have individual parts that can't be done purely physically as non-brain.

In other words we are playing the subjective, inter-subjective and objective and you apparently claim objective authority over it all.

 

[epronovost]

So how do the fact that you know I have mental representations of reality, which are not reality, pass through reality and enter your mental representations of reality, which are not reality?

Both our mental representation of reality are in reality it doesn't "pass through one and goes into the other". We both live in reality. Our perception of it differs for a variety of reasons and we share our perception on the subject with the use of words on the internet.

 

[Nakosis]

We need subjects/participants to TELL us about what they are doing (or at least assume they are following the tasks) in order to get even basic interpretations of neural correlate data off of the ground. What we can't do is make the leap from the assumption that brain imaging data is correlated with particular cognitive processes to the conclusion all cognitive processes or consciousness or the mind is physical (apart from a priori assumptions).

Ok,

By that logic, I've seen people "detect" the presence of ghosts and other paranormal activity.

Yes, this, to my understanding is a physical process of the brain. While I may not agree with the conclusion, that ghosts exist external to this internal process, the internal process of detection was physical.

I don't think it makes much sense. In physics, we deal with things all of the time that we don't really regard as being "physical" in the same sense the term is usually used colloquially. A lot of "fundamental" physical processes and constituents are in fact book-keeping devices for extracting data from experiments in HEP physics or in other similar arenas. Elsewhere, the problem is circumvented by using terms like "information" which is claimed to be more fundamental and treated as such because it is abstract to begin with and we don't have to worry about metaphysics.
We still make claims, however, about the very physical nature of things like probability currents and probability conservation, which is not physical in any meaningful sense but absolutely vital to our understanding of fundamental physics and its foundations.
On the other hand, absolutely basic components of physical experiences are excluded a priori from physics because we need to do experiments, Thus we need to pretend that we can set initial conditions for physical systems (with or without interaction or environment) in an idealized manner.
As a result, something as basic as "time" enters into fundamental physics as a parameter (even when we have to rename it as e.g., proper time because we need a temporal dimension to physical space).
Most of what is called "physical" in HEP, quantum many-body physics, quantum field theories, etc., consists of virtual processes and particles that are not physical in the sense the term is usually meant.
Additionally, the governing laws themselves (as well as governing principles such as the action) are postulated to have real physical consequences at cosmic and microcosmic scales but to have no physical existence.

Physical means it is something detectable. Time for instance is a measurement of change. You use a change which is detectable to measure some other change which is detectable.

If you can use your senses to perceive it or use instrument to detect it it fit the definition of physical.

I'm not an expert on either HEP nor quantum mechanics. However does either use evidence which we are unable to detect in some way?

 

[Nakosis]

I have found no way to understand the word "needs" as purely to be detectable to the human external senses or detectable to instruments. IOW it has to have some measurable property.

As far as I can tell your word "needs" don't meet your own standard for evidence. You are apparently conflating what makes sense to you with what you can sense through external sensations or detect with instruments.

A necessity given by the definition of "physical" given in the OP.
We would like our words to fit their definitions wouldn't we?

If this is not a need for you, no point in using words I suspect.

 

[Nakosis]

Okay, now I get you. That you only accept the physical as evidence is to me not physical. It is a mental subjective rule, which is a non-physical behaviour. I.e. you have no physical evidence, that evidence is physical. You have a mental rule, that you only accept physical experiences in relationship to you.
In other words you have an abstract rule that you only accept the concrete, whereas I use different mental rules for the abstract and the concrete and understand the abstract and concrete differently.

The ability to have a mental subjective rule requires a brain or not?

If you believe a mental subjective rule could exist without a brain that would certainly be non-detectable.

 

[DNB]

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

Yes, it is wrong. The byproduct of people's action necessitate a force that influences their motives. Why does a man smoke a cigarettes when all his intellect tells him that it's more detrimental, rather than good - vice. Why does one steal, when they won't allow others to steal from them - hypocrisy. Why do some spend countless of dollars on their appearance, and not the same on their health or character - pride and pretense. Why do people cheat on their spouses, have drug addictions, watch porno, or eat junk food, try and keep up with the Jones' - depravity, lust, greed, envy, avarice.
Why does man, who has the highest intellect of all the creatures on the earth, act in a manner that defies his intelligence? He is less pragmatic than all the other creatures, less disciplined, less structured, less strategic, and less sensible. Clearly, there is a force acting upon him that enables him to become the weakest of all creatures on the planet.

This is the evidence of the spiritual realm that surrounds us all. We are in the middle of a spiritual warfare where some people are greedy, whereas others are trying to help the less fortunate. Where one wants a fidel relationship, while the other would rather stray. Where one wants to party, and the other study and get healthy. One wages war, while the other rallies for peace and harmony. One's a drug dealer, and the other a cop. One's a legislator, and the other a law breaker.

Man's capacity for intelligence would demand a practical lifestyle and infrastructure on earth, but, on the whole, it's the exact opposite that we see.

Both God and the devil exist, the proof is in the pudding.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Is that position wrong?

'Wrong' isn't how I'd frame it. Perhaps 'limiting' though.

I think the risk is that this is a reductionist position, and you're limiting yourself along the lines of what we can test scientifically.

To be clear, I think science is limited to the material. So if you are purely talking about 'belief' in terms of validating hypothesis, then it's a different answer.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, it is wrong. The byproduct of people's action necessitate a force that influences their motives. Why does a man smoke a cigarettes when all his intellect tells him that it's more detrimental, rather than good - vice. Why does one steal, when they won't allow others to steal from them - hypocrisy. Why do some spend countless of dollars on their appearance, and not the same on their health or character - pride and pretense. Why do people cheat on their spouses, have drug addictions, watch porno, or eat junk food, try and keep up with the Jones' - depravity, lust, greed, envy, avarice.
Why does man, who has the highest intellect of all the creatures on the earth, act in a manner that defies his intelligence? He is less pragmatic than all the other creatures, less disciplined, less structured, less strategic, and less sensible. Clearly, there is a force acting upon him that enables him to become the weakest of all creatures on the planet.

This is the evidence of the spiritual realm that surrounds us all. We are in the middle of a spiritual warfare where some people are greedy, whereas others are trying to help the less fortunate. Where one wants a fidel relationship, while the other would rather stray. Where one wants to party, and the other study and get healthy. One wages war, while the other rallies for peace and harmony. One's a drug dealer, and the other a cop. One's a legislator, and the other a law breaker.

Man's capacity for intelligence would demand a practical lifestyle and infrastructure on earth, but, on the whole, it's the exact opposite that we see.

Both God and the devil exist, the proof is in the pudding.

A man smokes a cigarette because this action releases a chemical concoction in the brain which they consciously desire. We chase what triggers these chemical highs because it makes us feel good. When these chemicals are absent, we want to recreate whatever triggered them in the first place. Humans are emotional junkies looking for their next fix. I don't see humans as less of anything. We are simply more complex in the things that drive us. We are at war with our own idealism. Believing that we should be something more that what we are. You cannot win that war believing you should be something other than what you are. Peace come with understanding what we are and accepting it.