Replies

"What I'm saying is that the experience that a person has is also part of the set of input. Experiences differs from person to person and cannot be controlled for. Therefore the differences in the output may be attributable to the uncontrollable part of the input, whether or not there is a non-material component to the mind."

Can't be controlled for, huh? So then you can't ever know and your position moves into unfalsifiability and argument from ignorance.

Close enough. I'd say rather you proposed an experiment that cannot be done. Whether there is a non-material aspect of the mind is a matter of faith.

It's a faith I happen to have -- I do believe there is a non-material aspect of the human mind. And I'm secure enough in my faith that I don't have to propose undoable experiments to "prove" them.

Nice retreat into yet another logical fallacy.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Close enough. I'd say rather you proposed an experiment that cannot be done. Whether there is a non-material aspect of the mind is a matter of faith."

No, you admitted that the experiment can be done, but you believe that ill-defined factors override controllable inputs. You also claim that those ill-defined inputs are impossible to control. That's a completely different thing than saying that the experiment 'can't be done'.

The experiment can be done. You make the claim that the easily repeatable results are invalid for unfalsifiable reasons.

That is a fallacy.

Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.