Because there is no evidence for the non-material. Thus, by default, the rational position is one of material.
Subjective experiences are not physical things.
There is a difference between "materialism of the gaps" and materiality being the default rational position. Again - you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of this aspect.
You're quite right - I don't get why you think its acceptable to make one claim without evidence but say other claims without evidence are not acceptavble. You are making metaphysical assumptions.
I have explained why mind being matter is the default rational position. If you want to go against this position then YOU provide the evidence.
You will have to explain to me how it is that subjective experiences are physical.
This answers nothing, nor says anything.
You have yet to show why we should move from the default rational position that everything is material (i.e. emergent from purely material interactions).
1) There is no such thing as a default position - this is the same thing as saying you don't have evidence.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!
Here is the exact proble. You weren't talking about evidence - you were talking about rational conlcusions. You said: "If you can not appreciate what rational conclusions are then you should stop right here.
Rational conclusions are not proof of right or wrong.
Rational conclusions are merely preferring a certain conclusion over another one - given the inputs. "
You resorted to this rational conclusion argument because you can't provide evidence that subjective experiences come from the brain. Get it? One can make a rational conlcusion that consciousness comes from brain just as one can make a rational conclusion tha the universe comes from God. But we're talking about evidence.
I have highlighted in bold your continuing misunderstanding.
I have at no point said "mind MUST be material".
I have said that the default rational position, with current evidence, MUST be one of materiality - as there is NO EVIDENCE to support anything else.
And it is "self-evidently different than material" FOR YOU - not for me.
For me it is self-evidently NOT different.
Sp your saying there is no difference between the subjective experience and the thing itself. Say you are hlding a rock in your hand - the rock is physical, the subjective experience of it is not. Or think of a dream image - the dream image is not an actual material thing.
LOL!
How can you directly observe something that is not material? Please explain how the mind is "directly observed".
You know what I'm talking about when I say subjective experience. You understand what I mean when I say a dream image is not an actual physical thing right?
After you've explained how you think the mind is directly observed.
You know what it is like to be an entity with subjective experience right?
Nope. I can't. Never said I could.
Logical fallacy. Putting words into my mouth.
Plus yours now appears to be an argument from incredulity.
We do not understand consciousness - nor how it arises.
So why jump to the belief, in the absence of evidence, that it is non-material?
You do get that when you are dreaming that its not real physical things in the dream right?
Is energy non-material? Good question. First answer these: What is energy? Can you have energy without mass / matter? Is energy thus just a property of matter - and thus, under my definition (given earlier), wouldn't transfers of energy be material in nature?
From my understanding energy is not material. Energy is not a property of matter, matter is actually made of energy. This has obvious implications when talking about physical brains and immaterial consciousness.
For Pete's sake - how many times must i go over this....
There has NEVER been evidence for something that is non-material.
What are dream images? Physical things? Are thoughts physical things?
There has been, and continues to be, evidence for things that are material.
Thus the default rational position MUST THEREFORE BE that everything is material.
Even matter isn't made of material. There is no "default position."
Because there is no evidence for the non-material. Thus, by default, the rational position is one of material.
Subjective experiences are not physical things.
There is a difference between "materialism of the gaps" and materiality being the default rational position. Again - you are demonstrating your lack of understanding of this aspect.
You're quite right - I don't get why you think its acceptable to make one claim without evidence but say other claims without evidence are not acceptavble. You are making metaphysical assumptions.
I have explained why mind being matter is the default rational position. If you want to go against this position then YOU provide the evidence.
You will have to explain to me how it is that subjective experiences are physical.
This answers nothing, nor says anything.
You have yet to show why we should move from the default rational position that everything is material (i.e. emergent from purely material interactions).
1) There is no such thing as a default position - this is the same thing as saying you don't have evidence.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!
Here is the exact proble. You weren't talking about evidence - you were talking about rational conlcusions. You said: "If you can not appreciate what rational conclusions are then you should stop right here.
Rational conclusions are not proof of right or wrong.
Rational conclusions are merely preferring a certain conclusion over another one - given the inputs. "
You resorted to this rational conclusion argument because you can't provide evidence that subjective experiences come from the brain. Get it? One can make a rational conlcusion that consciousness comes from brain just as one can make a rational conclusion tha the universe comes from God. But we're talking about evidence.
I have highlighted in bold your continuing misunderstanding.
I have at no point said "mind MUST be material".
I have said that the default rational position, with current evidence, MUST be one of materiality - as there is NO EVIDENCE to support anything else.
And it is "self-evidently different than material" FOR YOU - not for me.
For me it is self-evidently NOT different.
Sp your saying there is no difference between the subjective experience and the thing itself. Say you are hlding a rock in your hand - the rock is physical, the subjective experience of it is not. Or think of a dream image - the dream image is not an actual material thing.
LOL!
How can you directly observe something that is not material? Please explain how the mind is "directly observed".
You know what I'm talking about when I say subjective experience. You understand what I mean when I say a dream image is not an actual physical thing right?
After you've explained how you think the mind is directly observed.
You know what it is like to be an entity with subjective experience right?
Nope. I can't. Never said I could.
Logical fallacy. Putting words into my mouth.
Plus yours now appears to be an argument from incredulity.
We do not understand consciousness - nor how it arises.
So why jump to the belief, in the absence of evidence, that it is non-material?
You do get that when you are dreaming that its not real physical things in the dream right?
Is energy non-material? Good question. First answer these: What is energy? Can you have energy without mass / matter? Is energy thus just a property of matter - and thus, under my definition (given earlier), wouldn't transfers of energy be material in nature?
From my understanding energy is not material. Energy is not a property of matter, matter is actually made of energy. This has obvious implications when talking about physical brains and immaterial consciousness.
For Pete's sake - how many times must i go over this....
There has NEVER been evidence for something that is non-material.
What are dream images? Physical things? Are thoughts physical things?
There has been, and continues to be, evidence for things that are material.
Thus the default rational position MUST THEREFORE BE that everything is material.
Even matter isn't made of material. There is no "default position."
Illusions are often seen where one can not comprehend / see the fundamental processes at work - or where one refuses to accept that they eyes can be deceived.
Science has shown many times in the past that the common sense notion is not true. That whats wrong with assumptions.
Consciousness is not understood, and the only evidence we have of it's "existence" is our own consciousness.
But there is NO evidence it is anything but the default rational position of material in nature - i.e. a result of purely physical interactions (and I do include in this energy).
If you think it is different - I continue to await your evidence.
Just tell me how it is that a dream image is a physical thing.