How could I lose materialism?

What sort of thing could I observe more bizarre than what science has already observed?

What would it lead me to postulate something that isn't simply unknown science.

Let's say for example, I proved minds could be read.

What sort of thing could I observe more bizarre than what science has already observed?

What would it lead me to postulate something that isn't simply unknown science.

Let's say for example, I proved minds could be read.

Your first problem is that you believe that science is tied to materialism (or physicalism, which is the more modern term). Physicalism isn't 'science', it's a philosophical belief as to what the nature of the world is, it is physical. Same as the philosophical belief that we can in fact do science in the first place. And a belief like that needs to be justified, it is not inherently true. Of course it's pretty easy to justify physicalism, everything we seem to observe and can detect is physical (though a question could be asked of how we could detect something that isn't physical if it did exist. What are we meant to do, weigh it?). To disprove that, you'd need to look for evidence of things that are especially hard for physicalism to explain, which there are some examples of in parapsychology with some things like Near Death Experiences, Ghosts and maybe mediumship research. 

Should also remember that in actual parapsychological research, mind reading isn't inherently interpreted as being something that disproves materialism.

Of course it's pretty easy to justify physicalism, everything we seem to observe and can detect is physical (though a question could be asked of how we could detect something that isn't physical if it did exist. What are we meant to do, weigh it?).

The only things we can observe and detect are our own thoughts and feelings. Everything else, from a table to the moon, is deduced second-hand. Even our own bodies, we experience various feelings, the things from our senses, as well as our emotional responses. If we feel something is hot, we can give some materialist description of that - the atoms or molecules are vibrating with greater energy in something hot. We also feel pain when we touch something hot. There is no physicalist description of pain. Materialism remains silent, with nothing to say. Yet we experience both heat and pain on an equal basis.

There is something very curious about that. How can we consider materialism adequate when it has nothing at all to say about things we detect with our own senses?

Your first problem is that you believe that science is tied to materialism (or physicalism, which is the more modern term). Physicalism isn't 'science', it's a philosophical belief as to what the nature of the world is, it is physical. Same as the philosophical belief that we can in fact do science in the first place. And a belief like that needs to be justified, it is not inherently true. Of course it's pretty easy to justify physicalism, everything we seem to observe and can detect is physical (though a question could be asked of how we could detect something that isn't physical if it did exist. What are we meant to do, weigh it?). To disprove that, you'd need to look for evidence of things that are especially hard for physicalism to explain, which there are some examples of in parapsychology with some things like Near Death Experiences, Ghosts and maybe mediumship research. 

Should also remember that in actual parapsychological research, mind reading isn't inherently interpreted as being something that disproves materialism.

I never claimed science is "tied" to the axioms of materialism

I do claim every explanation and observation science deals with is material.

As to your last sentence, if you re-read my posts, if
mind reading were to actually happen, I would in fact
attribute it to something material. The thing is, many 
ppl don't.

It is true, I don't think mind reading happens. I definitely 
think some ppl are great at reading body language and
reading people.

I never claimed science is "tied" to the axioms of materialism

I do claim every explanation and observation science deals with is material.

As to your last sentence, if you re-read my posts, if
mind reading were to actually happen, I would in fact
attribute it to something material. The thing is, many 
ppl don't.

It is true, I don't think mind reading happens. I definitely 
think some ppl are great at reading body language and
reading people.

What do you mean by "material"?

Because it's not clear anyone has a clear idea about [what] that means, save that apparently it won't include consciousness as a fundamental.

I never claimed science is "tied" to the axioms of materialism

I do claim every explanation and observation science deals with is material.

As to your last sentence, if you re-read my posts, if
mind reading were to actually happen, I would in fact
attribute it to something material. The thing is, many 
ppl don't.

It is true, I don't think mind reading happens. I definitely 
think some ppl are great at reading body language and
reading people.

Well that's fair that you think some people are great at reading body language and reading people. But is that a viable criticism to use against academic research into mind reading? Have you read anything about the methods they use?

The only things we can observe and detect are our own thoughts and feelings. Everything else, from a table to the moon, is deduced second-hand. Even our own bodies, we experience various feelings, the things from our senses, as well as our emotional responses. If we feel something is hot, we can give some materialist description of that - the atoms or molecules are vibrating with greater energy in something hot. We also feel pain when we touch something hot. There is no physicalist description of pain. Materialism remains silent, with nothing to say. Yet we experience both heat and pain on an equal basis.

There is something very curious about that. How can we consider materialism adequate when it has nothing at all to say about things we detect with our own senses?

That is a very good question. However, it does not suggest that some other metaphysic is adequate, since they have nothing to say, either.

~~ Paul

Should also remember that in actual parapsychological research, mind reading isn't inherently interpreted as being something that disproves materialism.

??

It would depend on the actual science model that shows how it works.  

On the other hand, if "reading minds" is some kind of information transfer --- WITHOUT A PHYSICAL SIGNAL  -- then yes, it would directly eliminate the truth value of a statement that claims actual information transfer CANNOT HAPPEN without a physical signal.

Pretty straightforward.

I do claim every explanation and observation science deals with is material.

It is true, I don't think mind reading happens. I definitely 
think some ppl are great at reading body language and
reading people.

In debating this - using the term physicalism helps.  What about explanations and observations that are about energy?   One of science greatest abstract achievements, is the separating of what are materials from their association with energetic states.  Once understood, the math for both took over the framework for materials science like chemistry.  Physics (the science of energy) is seen as the soundest, because it rests on the most abstract math.

The math and working models for abstract information science have risen to the front.  By the way --- every science datum is not material - it is informational. 
  
Are you a believer in magic matter, that has its own mind?  Science has rejected that materials "own" their own energy, like a property.  Energy flows through in waves.

We agree that people and animals can "read" motivation with great skill.  Maybe this is something to talk about?