[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

So a person with a DVD player attached to a TV set, proves TV programmes are not being broadcast?

No. I'll be charitable and posit that you're being willfully obtuse. If no other source is necessary to explain the TV program, if the DVD player hypothesis is sufficiently supported by the evidence, there's no reason to propose magical "broadcast signals."

Give me the evidence. I think you are making mountains out of sand castles

You've been given the evidence about 900 times already, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. There's nothing more I can do.

Since there is no 'default position' outside mindsets, hypotheses are necessary. If information (e.g. like telepathy, remote viewing, etc.) is shared with another TV set (mind-brain interaction) , it suggests something invisible is occurring outside the TV set.

There is ZERO evidence for telepathy or remote viewing. Zero.

As for claiming 'non-falsifiable', I would abandon the dualist argument *if* a few on the list I supplied was falsified.

That's just your same old argument from ignorance. You merely listed things we don't know yet about brain function. The fact that we can't explain every single detail of consciousness doesn't support dualism. Just as the fact that we can't explain every single detail of evolution doesn't support creationism.

My position is falsifiable but is yours?

Yes. Clearly. If the brain creates mind, then a broken brain breaks the mind, etc. But you seem unwilling to read.

You are seem to be arguing anything, by default, must be assumed to be only physical therefore anything non-physical must be assumed false by default ...

No. Two hypotheses. One's claims are supported by ever increasing mountains of evidence, the other is not supported by any evidence.

therefore anything non-physical causing physical effects is judged false until some physical cause is found .... this is a non-falsifiable physicalists stance. Tell me what would falsify physicalism for you?

There are many claims made by the materialist hypothesis that are falsifiable, as I've already stated repeatedly. This is ridiculous.

Strawman. I am not religious, not a creationist.

Bullcrap. This is not a strawman. It's an analogy, illustrating your argument from ignorance. You say, "Well, science can't explain EVERY detail of consciousness, therefore the proper hypothesis is the dualist hypothesis," just as the creationists say, "Well, science can't explain EVERY detail of evolution, therefore the proper hypothesis is creationism."

As Novella pointed out re Egnor, you argue just like a creationist, refusing to acknowledge the evidence.

Originally Posted by Dr. Novella

If the mind is completely a product of the material function of the brain then:
- There will be no mental phenomena without brain function.
- As brain function is altered, the mind will be altered.
- If the brain is damaged, then mental function will be damaged.
- Brain development will correlate with mental development.
- We will be able to correlate brain activity with mental activity – no matter how we choose to look at it.

All of these predictions have been resolved in favor of materialism. Every single one! Dualism makes predictions too – that some mental function will be documented to exist separate from brain function. The evidence for this? None.