If something can interact with something physical, i.e. if it has physical consequences, then it is detectable. Your question is more along the lines of 'can WE detect it, or is it within our technological grasp'. That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

Dualism requires a medium of interaction. If an object is physical and interacts with another object, then we define the other object to be physical. Since our own senses are totally physical, everything we interact with is physical by definition. If we can detect it, there is no way to distinguish it from what is physical, as it would necessarily have physical consequences(as we detect anything physically by looking for its physical consequences).



There is no palpable difference between neutralism, idealism and physicalism. Physicalism is just popular. They are all logically the same in the sense that going from one is relation preserving. You might even call them isomorphic.




I don't think that causation matters. Its all about description and facts. The only limitation is what is logically possible, and the sort of causation you talk about is at most some practical tool. Viewing events as separate, the house shaking, and you stomping your foot, and you neurons firing ect is the only way to view them without introducing a tellic falacy.



It means nothing, we don't need the cause. We just need the strong correlation to show that it is practical to assume the cause. Causation is just inductive reasoning, which is fallacious.




Physicalism is identical to every other form of monism. It makes no difference, the logical structure of idealism preserves every relation between objects that physicalism does, they are the same thing but with different wording. Monsim is more sensible than dualism(which cannot provide a mechanism for interaction), but physicalism is neutralism is idealism.




If the element has any physical consequences, I define it to be physical. Just as if I were speaking from the idealists perspective I would say that because I can detect it, it must come from the mind. Or from the neutralists perspective, because I can detect it, and I am of one substance, so must be that which I detect.



See above about detection.



A lot of assumptions based around a very narrow view of monism. No comment.

Well, you have reinforced my opinion of the futility of discussion with those who already believe, whether they have proper evidence or not, that reality is ONLY some way. You filtered, dismissed, slanted, redefined, and otherwise found a means to twist every fact of existence into a purely physical event despite how poorly the fit. I'll leave you and Hue-man to your physicalistic believer's cult while I head over to the religious believer's cult to hear them filter, dismiss, slant, redefine and otherwise find means to twist every fact of existence into Biblical prophesy. :devilish:

This is a response to what I have read in the past couple of pages.


Do we witness causation?:


No we dont. Seeing one billiard ball hit another billiard ball and saying that the second BB's movement was caused by the first BB is not witnessing causation in-action. All you're seeing is a regularity, for Hume already pointed this out centuries ago that empiricism is inductive and regularities is the best you can get. We dont witness 'necessity' or 'causation'. Therefore, no one 'sees' causation, only a high degree of correlation. Saying the first BB caused the second BB to move is using the term in an easier to understand fashion or a colloquial sense. For nothing in empiricism can be said with certainty. Only with rationalism do we get certainty.

So saying the brain involved in consciousness is sheer correlation and not causation is simply a non-sequitor. Besides for anything to get published in science it has to have a 95% correlation ratio of accuracy so repeatability and reliability can ensue. Alot of the so called 'analogies' being put forth about the brain and consciousness are pretty much what McGinn calls hyperdualism.

The brain is like a receiver or transducer for consciousness, therefore damage to the brain distorts consciousness.

Which doesnt really solve the interactionist problem at all. It only makes it worse, and the assumptions just increased tenfold as well. Also there isnt a bias towards consciousness being physical. That's what the evidence tells us. If there's evidence for non-physicality then everyone (including myself) would want to see it. How is that biased? It's not. People are open-minded to these things, people would rather see the unexpected, the new information at changes the perspectives of everyone, but if there's no evidence for it then there's no evidence for it.