Common sense argument - the mind and materialism

 Good grief! Certainly both of you are smart enough to realise Paul is using the word "proof" in the vernacular. He could have wrote it the way you two did, but why (I ask rhetorically)?

There is a very different ways and rules to deal with a "proof" and with objective evidence.

Other than math and logic proofs - proof is a valid non formalized point of view.  Proof is a conclusion of considered analysis based on evidence.  There can be legit reasons to analyze the same evidence and draw differing logical points of view.  This is where analysis of the logic used in the analysis is valuable.

One can say that a single report of an OBE or a NDE is proof that there are paranormal experiences to be had -- as black swans.  Another thinker can say thousands of subjective accounts are still not empirical proof.

However, one PoV can say that many data points can be seen as a probabilistic indication of a natural pattern and agree that the question is open,  And further, that a stream of subjective reports may lead to a rethinking of how mind works in nature.

There is a very different ways and rules to deal with a "proof" and with objective evidence.

Other than math and logic proofs - proof is a valid non formalized point of view.  Proof is a conclusion of considered analysis based on evidence.  There can be legit reasons to analyze the same evidence and draw differing logical points of view.  This is where analysis of the logic used in the analysis is valuable.

One can say that a single report of an OBE or a NDE is proof that there are paranormal experiences to be had -- as black swans.  Another thinker can say thousands of subjective accounts are still not empirical proof.

However, one PoV can say that many data points can be seen as a probabilistic indication of a natural pattern and agree that the question is open,  And further, that a stream of subjective reports may lead to a rethinking of how mind works in nature.

Oy!

I suppose my problem is that whenever an example is given, the way I hear it is mostly at odds with the supposedly 'correct' interpretation. I can't get around that. My ears hear something else. That's why I leave it to others to explore, I would not stand in their way, but I wouldn't feel I could support it.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of some of the emerging understanding about how we think. The main difference between popular wisdom and that emerging understanding is that we first receive information into our mostly unconscious mind. It is compared there with our worldview and the results of that are presented to our conscious awareness. These are my terms, but the essence of the idea is in http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/docu...dfield.pdf, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/ and sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm

The nexus of our personal reality is worldview which is like a database holding what we are taught, memory, instincts and acquired understanding. Incoming information tends to be ignored if it does not agree with worldview. It is modified to agree with our worldview if it is close, else we tend to turn toward that which most agrees with our personal sense of reality.

If that is true, "the way you hear it" would either agree with what you think is true or you would tend to reject it. Based on my years-long effort to explain some of these concepts, I am under the impression that the unconscious pre-processing of information hypothesis is largely correct. I also see this in the nature of some of the trans-etheric phenomena people experience.

It is for you to decide how you wish to manage your personal reality.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of some of the emerging understanding about how we think. The main difference between popular wisdom and that emerging understanding is that we first receive information into our mostly unconscious mind. It is compared there with our worldview and the results of that are presented to our conscious awareness. These are my terms, but the essence of the idea is in http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/docu...dfield.pdf, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/ and sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414145705.htm

The nexus of our personal reality is worldview which is like a database holding what we are taught, memory, instincts and acquired understanding. Incoming information tends to be ignored if it does not agree with worldview. It is modified to agree with our worldview if it is close, else we tend to turn toward that which most agrees with our personal sense of reality.

If that is true, "the way you hear it" would either agree with what you think is true or you would tend to reject it. Based on my years-long effort to explain some of these concepts, I am under the impression that the unconscious pre-processing of information hypothesis is largely correct. I also see this in the nature of some of the trans-etheric phenomena people experience.

It is for you to decide how you wish to manage your personal reality.

All 3 links were worthwhile reading.  Thanks for the links!

What do you mean by "proof"? It certainly isn't part of the implements of science. Science and the establishment of "laws" are about the (overwhelming) preponderance of evidence, not absolute certainty. 

Whatever kind of proof you want, the request probably is a rhetorical stratagem and impossible to furnish.

Dictionary.com gives a long list of definitions of the word "proof". These are the most relevant ones:

(1) Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
(2) Anything serving as such evidence.
(3) The act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
(4) The establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
(5) In mathematics and logic a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

Is the kind of proof you want the mathematics and logic kind, (5)? I invite you to prove your own proposition in this way. That is, prove in this way your own proposition that qualia are material. It's a form of proof that isn't applicable to the subject. 

Going back to science and its methodology, the proposition that qualia are not material has a large body of evidence, alluded to earlier. This consists of things like the demonstration of fundamental existential differences between the elements of qualia and the elements of material things. The one category of "things" is measured in fundamentally different units than the other. What evidence can you furnish that qualia are indeed material? It's a matter of the preponderance of evidence.

I want a logical proof, since all the claims that qualia cannot be a physical process are of the form "claims that qualia are a physical process make a category error" and such like. You just said they have "fundamental existential differences." That's a logical claim. If logical proofs are not applicable, then neither are the logical arguments against qualia being physical.

You are correct that probably no one can furnish a proof one way or the other. That is why I await further scientific study. 

~~ Paul