Quote Originally Posted by Original Poster View Post
Non-empirical belief
I don't know what this was supposed to respond to or what it's supposed to mean.

My claim remains the same, you use falsification of claims in order to validate their opposing claims and this is fallacious.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Give an example.

Anything you're unwilling to question proves my point
I have never refused to question anything, either read my posts more carefully or stop straw manning.

and any attempt to turn the tables and force me to attempt to make a claim so that you can falsify it also proves my point.
I have no idea what you're talking about.

My only suggestion is to stop acting like just because you haven't seen enough empirical evidence in support of something doesn't mean the opposite is true.
Nobody is acting like that.

Regardless of what you choose to argue now that it's on the chopping block, the inherent assumption is that mind exists within the brain.
I've already discussed this. You're just repeating yourself and still haven't engaged with anything that was said on the matter. Move the discussion forwards or drop it.

Or, if you really intend to go there, that science doesn't deal with the metaphysical, which is also bullshit. You can't just dismiss something or assume it has no effect.
I like to think of myself as a clear communicator but apparently not, as you've understood nothing of what I've just tried to communicate. Science concerns observations of the observed world. That's its definition. By metaphysics, I refer to anything which does not concern observations. That these two cannot coincide is simply a matter of definitions. If something has an observed effect then obviously it's not metaphysics.

Your attitude in its regard has already basically proven my point, which is that many of your assumptions are baseless, not based on any empirical evidence.
Which assumptions?

I never said ALL as you would like to argue.
All what?

If the ability to imagine things and construct abstract vision is purely in the realm of metaphysics and not scientific, as you claim, then that would be an assertion in duality which is also completely unproven. Not only that, but it doesn't reflect the views of the scientific community at large.
For one thing you're using vague words. To the extent that you are making any scientific claims about imagination, I never even mentioned the subject.