Why Physicalism Is Wrong

Ok Mister Dante, since you agree with him experimentally prove his position. I'd like to see such positive evidence.

You have fundamentally never understood that every truth there is to be known cannot be measured experimentally. This is not shocking, since rather than engage with philosophical arguments that challenge your position, you dismiss them without any sort of comprehension of what they're attempting to argue. That's always been comical to me, because even for a run of the mill scientistic internet skeptic, you seem to be fairly lacking in any sort of robust scientific understanding either. 

Can you experimentally prove when someone is happy, sad, or feeling any emotion? Can you experimentally prove that life can be created randomly and spontaneously, or where life comes from? Can you experimentally prove that the brain and matter are solely and entirely responsible for the existence of consciousness? Can you experimentally prove consciousness? The important thing when making such a challenge is to ask, if I am challenged with the very same objection, can I actually respond to it in a reasonable way? The answer in your case is certainly not. 

You really, really love appealing to science and experiments - do you understand that nearly everyone here also enjoys science, has a science background, or is actively participating in the field (if they have not in the past)? Nearly, if not literally, all of the consistent contributors here would not disagree with you generally about science and its findings. What those other members certainly have a much more comprehensive understanding of, is that science is limited, and you cannot literally appeal to it to solve any issue you have at any time. It is one realm of human knowledge. Those who choose to ignore and dismiss philosophy at large are entirely missing the point, and are relying on only one of the methods by which knowledge and understanding can be gained.

As is often the case with you, the irony of your post (as Brian pointed out) is lost on you entirely. I'm sure you will not understand how it's ironic. I do think it would be fun for you to describe to us how you can experimentally prove any number of things which are taken for granted on a day to day basis. In addition to, you know, the fact that you absolutely, positively cannot experimentally demonstrate or prove your position.

Try proving your position experimentally.

You have fundamentally never understood that every truth there is to be known cannot be measured experimentally. This is not shocking, since rather than engage with philosophical arguments that challenge your position, you dismiss them without any sort of comprehension of what they're attempting to argue. That's always been comical to me, because even for a run of the mill scientistic internet skeptic, you seem to be fairly lacking in any sort of robust scientific understanding either. 

Can you experimentally prove when someone is happy, sad, or feeling any emotion? Can you experimentally prove that life can be created randomly and spontaneously, or where life comes from? Can you experimentally prove that the brain and matter are solely and entirely responsible for the existence of consciousness? Can you experimentally prove consciousness? The important thing when making such a challenge is to ask, if I am challenged with the very same objection, can I actually respond to it in a reasonable way? The answer in your case is certainly not. 

You really, really love appealing to science and experiments - do you understand that nearly everyone here also enjoys science, has a science background, or is actively participating in the field (if they have not in the past)? Nearly, if not literally, all of the consistent contributors here would not disagree with you generally about science and its findings. What those other members certainly have a much more comprehensive understanding of, is that science is limited, and you cannot literally appeal to it to solve any issue you have at any time. It is one realm of human knowledge. Those who choose to ignore and dismiss philosophy at large are entirely missing the point, and are relying on only one of the methods by which knowledge and understanding can be gained.

As is often the case with you, the irony of your post (as Brian pointed out) is lost on you entirely. I'm sure you will not understand how it's ironic. I do think it would be fun for you to describe to us how you can experimentally prove any number of things which are taken for granted on a day to day basis. In addition to, you know, the fact that you absolutely, positively cannot experimentally demonstrate or prove your position.

The question I'm actually posing is how do you know what he wrote is actually true? And secondarily how would one go about proving it?

The question I'm actually posing is how do you know what he wrote is actually true? And secondarily how would one go about proving it?

I was under the impression it is a philosophical point and so doesn't come under such types of enquiry.

The question I'm actually posing is how do you know what he wrote is actually true? And secondarily how would one go about proving it?

We don't know whether what he wrote is actually true, nor is anyone here suggesting that they "know" that to be the case. This is a well recognized grey area. Thinking that one side is more persuasive than or has stronger evidence than the other is not equivalent to "knowing" the truth about a topic for which the only certain statement that can be made at present is, "we don't know for sure."

Proofs of the philosophical ilk are generally "proven" by way of argument. However, an argument does not need to be provable to have force or make a meaningful point. Again, just because scientists are the ones conducting the experiments does not always mean they are best situated, or perhaps a better way to say it is best equipped, to actually analyze the results of those studies. And further, philosophical arguments can shed light on some issues that science just cannot touch, of which there are many. Science, for instance, cannot tell us the meaning of life. No matter what position one takes in attempting to answer that question, it is undoubtedly one that science has nothing to say about. Proof in the way you're using it is not a requisite for utility, at least in terms of logical reasoning or philosophy.