You are speaking to another mind. This is a metaphysical entity not made of matter. You are the metaphysical materialist. Unless you can account for the physical matter which makes us mind you have referenced another metaphysical truth. You are corresponding with another mind.Although not a metaphysical entity, logic has a sort of metaphysical nature. I t is in fact an abstract, universal entity, as is reason ( the application of laws of the logic), numbers, sets, and beauty, objective morality, and mind.
Unless you can account for these immaterial entities with matter, I am afraid your commitment to materialism exceeds your devotion to Truth. If you can epistemically account for these entities, and other universal abstract entities, please share it with me. I really do want to know the answer.
I already said I have no interest in a philosophical discussion because it doesn’t interest me.
I also said ‘as long as you aren’t picky about the answers’ and you get so picky as to take one imprecise word ‘believe’ and claim I have faith after my views on the matter are clear to anyone who apparently researched my posts enough to list a number of them, some correctly.
Gotcha tactics like that aren’t honest debating tactics. Attempting to lead another person into a logical train wreck of gibberish with leading questions that misrepresent my position, is also not an honest tactic. Something I suspected you would engage in from your very first post to me, politely asking if you could ask me some questions.
Saying you are looking to me for answers is also ridiculous as I’ve stated clearly I have no ‘answers’ and don’t claim to be an expert. That’s not false modesty as it is true of you as well, or any person that has ever lived on the planet. There are those who dedicate their lives to these subjects and may be considered more qualified to speak on them, but they also are not to be looked at as having the answers, only better qualified provided their work can be tested, repeated and meet rigid scientific standards, all of whom should be well aware a new discovery could change everything tomorrow.
You are obviously looking to play word games in an attempt to say ‘gotcha’ instead of honestly looking for my position.
It’s why I try to be very precise in my answers instead of just saying yes or no to questions that presume incorrect positions of mine or others in the question and I’ve asked for clarification of definitions several times.
Speak directly and you may get a better response. You want to discuss meaning of life and metaphysical planes of existence, you will have to do with someone who is interested in such pursuits.
To be clear though, I have seen no evidence of such an existence in measurable terms outside the pursuits of philosophy. The mind is not metaphysical and I did not agree that it was to begin with. You found one word and presumed way too much. Though many works on this issue can be interesting and worthwhile to investigate, it’s not scientific, even if brain waves that create the concept of mind can be measured scientifically.
Your mind is nothing more than a manifestation of natural processes. The mind is only a separate entity based on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
I said it earlier that just because you can imagine something doesn’t mean it exists. You can also formulate a question that is complete nonsense and dismissed out of hand as being ridiculous to even consider answering, like what color is love?
I could imagine a unicorn, but they don’t exist and there is no evidence that they actually have ever existed. That doesn’t make unicorns real or prove any metaphysical plane of existence. It also doesn’t mean they aren’t real, btw.
Consciousness is a result of physical processes, not separate from it. There are no immaterial entities for which to account when they are merely a creation of the brain, a physical, natural process, itself.