[GourmetDan]

"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.

[onewhowatches]

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'.

If you want to put it that way, then I'll put it this way: The results of the experiment would be meaningless, because of the inability to control the outside inputs.

As for "ill-defined," let me define what cannot be controlled: Everything a person has experienced before entering into the experiment. Everything a person experiences during the experiment that is not a direct result of the inputs of the experiment.